Well Congress has no business telling the commander and chief how to run a war. Seriously, running a war by committee is just plain stupid.

So if the CnC told his army that the best way to conquer the enemy is to eliminte the threat from within, and started rounding up, executing and "dissapearing" citizens of our nation, husbands, children, wives, for a vague or plainly false reasons, you'd say: "more power to 'em!" ?

No, the president is a public servant. He does what we want him to do. Congress, as our representatives, our our voice in the political process to tell the president what we want.

he bows to OUR wishes, first and formost, now and forever. We elect him, we tell him what to do, and he dosent say "your wrong." When we say jump, he asks "how high?" That's the president's job.

That is EVERY politicians job, to jump when we say jump and to dissent when we dissent. Anything else and they're not doing their job, they're representing somebody else or some other agenda. We must force the government to back down when they do things we don't like, the government should never be able to do what it wants and tell the people they have no say or that they're opinions are "wrong".

people should never fear their government, and governments must always fear the power of it's people.

/shrugs. I heard that he is attempting a discussion to come up with some objectives to measure progress, I don't know how long that is going.

As for vetoing...It's his right, inscrined in the Consitution. The one thing the Founding Fathers hated was rule by the Mob, and the President has to power to overrule the Legalstive Branch if he feels it is necessary for a greater goal in mind. Besides, if the Democrat held the Presidency and the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Republicans wanted to cut something terrible, and most people are for the Republicans, the Democrat would veto it too, because he believes in something greater than poll numbers.

Balance of power seems very strange in this era, no? Still, best to protect it, lest you be on the receiving end.

Dont get me wrong, I don't disagree that veto is an important part of the system, and if the opposing faction had the votes, they couldoverride the presidents veto. And if they do, then they should. As proof that the representatives of the people are willing to go all out to prove he's in the wrong.

That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.

So if the CnC told his army that the best way to conquer the enemy is to eliminte the threat from within, and started rounding up, executing and "dissapearing" citizens of our nation, husbands, children, wives, for a vague or plainly false reasons, you'd say: "more power to 'em!" ?

No, the president is a public servant. He does what we want him to do. Congress, as our representatives, our our voice in the political process to tell the president what we want.

he bows to OUR wishes, first and formost, now and forever. We elect him, we tell him what to do, and he dosent say "your wrong." When we say jump, he asks "how high?" That's the president's job.

That is EVERY politicians job, to jump when we say jump and to dissent when we dissent. Anything else and they're not doing their job, they're representing somebody else or some other agenda. We must force the government to back down when they do things we don't like, the government should never be able to do what it wants and tell the people they have no say or that they're opinions are "wrong".

people should never fear their government, and governments must always fear the power of it's people.

Dont get me wrong, I don't disagree that veto is an important part of the system, and if the opposing faction had the votes, they couldoverride the presidents veto. And if they do, then they should. As proof that the representatives of the people are willing to go all out to prove he's in the wrong.

That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.


Yes, the president is a public servant, but in wartime the president is often granted far reaching power. Lincoln succeded, despite howls of protest, in suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and FDR in moving foreign nationals into internment camps. Wilson even had someone (I forget her name) deported for sedition in WW1. Many things can apparently be done if a state of national emergency is declared. Part of the problem with taking the attitude that a politician jumps when "we" say jump is that there is no monolithic "we" in this country (or any nation, really). The president's job is not to rule by poll results, but to try to serve the nation w/in the bounds of the Constitution. If he fails to do so, it rests upon the Congress to try to remove him. Barring that, there's always revolution (though even the one from England wasn't universally popular).

The only problem with the filibuster is when certain parties in Congress try to contort the conditions surrounding it's use. The concept of "supermajorities" come to mind.

If you want to run a war, all you need to do is unlock the cages of those who fight the wars for you, those who know more about fighting and how to wage and win war than you ever will.
I said the same thing. It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

If the planners fought the war hopefully they would have the equipment they should have had before they were deployed.

They also would not be lied to about the length of their deployment.

If the people that plan this great debacle fought it, then the hospitals their wounded comrades stayed in wouldn’t have mold on the walls.

If (as you wrote) “the morons who started the wars fought them themselves,” then maybe there would be fewer wars in this world. We would look for peaceful alternatives and use war itself as truly a last resort. However that is all just a pipe dream. These “morons” are just after two things power and money. They achieve their goals at the cost our young men and women’s blood. These “morons” don’t have the courage or the honor to be a US soldier.

When I noticed how inaffective the Democrats were, I began to become very displaced with the over all issues. If you have a president that doesn't do shnite about anything, and a congress that has no power at all, you are left with, "Who gives a snot." I am getting tired of watching the 6:30 news to find out that we have gone nowhere in all directions. We have not made progress in Iraq, we have not made progress in congress, we have not made progress anywhere. Our domestic deficit is at an all time high, our stock market is being fuled by foreign investors, our gas prices are being gauged by oil tycoons, our domestic economy grew at 1%, and terrorists are building bases in South America. WT@#%^! If we do not do something about anything, something will no doubt happen without being in our control.

Grrr...

I say that we should pull out of Iraq, go after the bases in South America, stablize Afganiztan (sp?), some how lower gas prices, and then let god sort out what results from all this shnite.

I said the same thing. It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

Certainly, I think Bush and those who are very much for war should spend a week in combat, not just at some secured site for a public appearence, but taken twenty miles behind enemy lines. That's not what I'm talking about though. How much do you think Bush knows about war? More than a SEAL platoon? A Delta squad? A Ranger batallion? Who does he think he is trying to tell these people how to fight war? They've been doing it at the absolute elite level, for maybe twenty years or more. He's more or less uncaging the animals to fight the war for him and then tieing their hands because he wants them to fight his way, by his timeline, budget, ect.

That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.

The fillibuster just seems like an overused parlmeintary tactic that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Still, it is used, of course, and I'm not against it or anything. It's there, let have it.

A note however: The clouter rule means that you need 60 Senators to vote For Closing the debate. If at least 40 Senators want to go and 'continue debate', Cloture Rule means nothing. The Cloture Rule therefore can be used to protect the minority party in the Senate, and I can't wait to see the Republican Party start to use that rule to block the Democrats.

Okay, first of all people seem to be neglecting several key points.

1. Congress did basically authorize the war in Iraq.

2. Article 2 of the United States Congress states that it is the President of the United States that is in charge of our armed forces, not Congress, once they authorized the use of troops the only recourse congress has is to cut off funding. Any time tables they enter into legislation would likely be thrown out by the United States Supreme Court.

3. While the United Nations didn't support us going into Iraq, the motives for not supporting us was not at all noble.
- France, Russia, and China were selling military equipment to Saddam after the Persian Gulf War despite the UN resolutions which they supported to bar the sales of military equipment to Saddam.
- Saddam was manipulating the Oil for Food Program to get millions if not billions of dollars in kickbacks. Bribing various people in different governments and the UN. If we hadn't invaded this wouldn't have been brought to light.

4. There was legitimate reason to believe Saddam still had Chemical and biological weapons.
- Something that's been bugging me is what happened to several tons of Anthrax, he couldn't have incinerated it all without someone noticing.

5. There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
- The United States delayed for several months trying to get the UN to support the invasion. During this time there was a lot of traffic to and from Baghdad, the areas where WMDs were according to intelligence and to and from the Iraqi/Syrian border. Several months is plenty of time to bury and or move all that stuff out of the country.
- There were a bunch of Hazmat suits that were made in France that were still unopened made after the 1st Gulf War, that were found in Iraq. What possible use did the Iraqi troops have for Hazmat suits when the US doesn't use Biological/Chemical weapons.
- At least one of the Rockets/missiles fired into Kuwait by Iraq exceeded the range limit designated by at least one UN resolution which basically stated Iraq couldn't have missiles that could fire beyond a certain range. So yes, Saddam was still violating UN resolutions.

6. Saddam had been shooting at US aircraft which were enforcing the no fly zone.

7. Saddam was providing aid to terrorists which were attacking Israel, an ally of the United States.
- Bush did state the United States was at war with terrorists and any country that supported terrorists, Saddam started harping on the fact he was providing aid to terrorists attacking Israel. If he figured Bush was bluffing he failed to take into account many Texans don't know how to bluff, when they say something, they mean it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Next the reason we have to stay in Iraq is simple, if we leave before Iraq is able to stand on its own, then we'll have to go into Iraq a few years later because Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations and it would cost us more money and lives than it would to just stay and finish the job in the first place. Then there is the fact that Iran is providing weapons, training, and personale to attack our forces in Iraq. So the question is how much is Iraqis actually attacking us, how much is the Iranians, and how much is Al-Qaeda.

Then there is the fact that unlike the situation in Vietnam, our troops believe they can win in Iraq. Pulling the rug out from under our troops while saying you support them is like lying to their faces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid. He went to the same university as John Kerry and got better grades than Kerry did, so if Bush is as stupid as people say he is, then Kerry wouldn't even be able to talk at all cause he would be functionally Braindead. I know Dan Rather whom used to work at CBS and other liberals in the media would love for everyone to believe Bush is below average intelligence, but in all actuallity it just shows they have a problem with telling the truth when it doesn't suit their left-wing agenda.

Okay, first of all people seem to be neglecting several key points.
3. While the United Nations didn't support us going into Iraq, the motives for not supporting us was not at all noble.
I think people should already beaware that the U.N. is a useless organization,
their failure over the years is very apparent.
They aren't noble period !

There was legitimate reason to believe Saddam still had Chemical and biological weapons.
- Something that's been bugging me is what happened to several tons of Anthrax, he couldn't have incinerated it all without someone noticing.
Maybe he didn't have none in the first place, maybe it was all a lie.
The U.N. weapons inspectors destroyed all the chemical and bioweapons, maybe that is what happen to the Anthrax.

Did you ever consider that ?

There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
WHAT ? :lol:
I can't believe people are still talking about those imaginary WMDs after 4 YEARS.
Well, it seem more like six years.
How long is people going to keep believing he had WMDs ?
Until the sun fissile out? :lol:

- The United States delayed for several months trying to get the UN to support the invasion. During this time there was a lot of traffic to and from Baghdad, the areas where WMDs were according to intelligence and to and from the Iraqi/Syrian border. Several months is plenty of time to bury and or move all that stuff out of the country.
Having you been watching the news ?
The intelligence officials said that intelligence was flawed.

- There were a bunch of Hazmat suits that were made in France that were still unopened made after the 1st Gulf War, that were found in Iraq. What possible use did the Iraqi troops have for Hazmat suits when the US doesn't use Biological/Chemical weapons.
The US doesn't use Biological/Chemical. :lol:
I doubt that.
They may not use it publically, but I supect they do do experiments with bio and chemical weapons.
Everything the government do isn't always public, they have many BIG SECRETS.
I don't trust them. :)

- At least one of the Rockets/missiles fired into Kuwait by Iraq exceeded the range limit designated by at least one UN resolution which basically stated Iraq couldn't have missiles that could fire beyond a certain range. So yes, Saddam was still violating UN resolutions.
Yeah, I agree with that, he was in violation of the missile range limits.
But UN resolutions is funny, though.

6. Saddam had been shooting at US aircraft which were enforcing the no fly zone.
Of course he was shooting at them, he wasn't going to let them just fly over his air space, because they are the U.S. .


7. Saddam was providing aid to terrorists which were attacking Israel, an ally of the United States.
Where is this evidence ?
As the skeptics would ask.

- Bush did state the United States was at war with terrorists and any country that supported terrorists.
Saddam started harping on the fact he was providing aid to terrorists attacking Israel. If he figured Bush was bluffing he failed to take into account many Texans don't know how to bluff, when they say something, they mean it.
Still where is this evidence?
Unless the news media is lying as neo-cons would say, there is no evidence that Saddam supported terrorists. :lol:


Next the reason we have to stay in Iraq is simple, if we leave before Iraq is able to stand on its own, then we'll have to go into Iraq a few years later because Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations and it would cost us more money and lives than it would to just stay and finish the job in the first place.
Yeah now, Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations.
What about we just make Iraq the 51st state.
It will probably make things more easier. :)
It just don't look like they are going to stand up on their own soon, maybe 20-50 years from now.




Then there is the fact that unlike the situation in Vietnam, our troops believe they can win in Iraq. Pulling the rug out from under our troops while saying you support them is like lying to their faces.
Why it got to be about what the troops believe, it's what the officials believe.
I think the troops is more concern about getting the hell out of there before
they lose a arm, eye sight, hearing or their lives.
The troops are in a meatgrinder.
That war is a stalemate, now.
And don't say that cut and run crap. :)
They are in a civil war.
Keeping the troops there will just make them targets of opportunity.

The Iraqis seem to show no interest in taking charge of their country's future.
All I keep hearing from them is keep the troops there, keep the troops there and keep the troops there...
They seem be more interested in relying on the U.S. military to take care of them, until Bush's useless ass is ejected out of office.


Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid.
Who said it did?
But trust me he is a fool.
Believing that the war is going good, after of 4 yrs of no progress, is anserine.
It's time for him to be evicted.


He went to the same university as John Kerry and got better grades than Kerry did, so if Bush is as stupid as people say he is, then Kerry wouldn't even be able to talk at all cause he would be functionally Braindead. I know Dan Rather whom used to work at CBS and other liberals in the media would love for everyone to believe Bush is below average intelligence, but in all actuallity it just shows they have a problem with telling the truth when it doesn't suit their left-wing agenda.
What do that got to do with anything?
Oh, this left left-wing, right wing bull. :rolleyes:

It's more like secret government agenda, but that is another topic.

Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...

Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...
I know about that, I'm talking about, I doubt he had any left on March 17, 2003 when "Shock and Ahh" occurred. :)

Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...

Yeah, because we GAVE them to the ~snipped~! We blessed his actions, propped him up, and looked the other way during his abuses. Do I have to dig up the articles from the 80's where Rumsfeld and Cheney call him a "wonderful human being" and the photo ops of them shaking hands with him? Our government didn't give a rat's arse that he was bombing and raping his own people, and we didn't give a rat's arse about the women being prisoners in their homes, and reduced to chattel under the Taliban, either. Just three weeks before we invade the place to smoke out Bin Laden (and why did we waste resources in Iraq instead of hunting down the scoundrel? My guess is that he makes too good a boogeyman to actually kill), the Bush adminsistration gives them 16 million dollars as a reward for burning poppy fields as part of the War on Drugs (another war that's gone into stalemate).

And no, it's not totally Bush, because the abuses under the Taliban and the profiteering in Iraq was also benefitting Slick Willie Clinton. Activists from all sides were hollering about the Taliban since 1995, and the "food for oil" deal was being protested since it started, but no one paid any attention to it!

The Republican elephants are full of crap and the Democrat ~snipped~ live up to their image. It's one of the reasons I declare myself Green or Freedom Socialist on my voter form.

Y'know what I absolutely love? How people take all responsibility away from the people who commit these acts; Saddam, Al Qaeda ect and instead places the blame on America for training them against the Soviets or what not.

Y'know what I absolutely love? How people take all responsibility away from the people who commit these acts; Saddam, Al Qaeda ect and instead places the blame on America for training them against the Soviets or what not.

The argument I have for that is that we created these monsters because they were out to hurt those who were our enemy at the time, and the things we now use to justify going to war were done with our blessing in the first place. Not saying they aren't dead wrong, and not denying thoise guys are zits on the face of humanity, but there are no saints or angels writing foreign policy. There is no one with the moral high ground, no innocent party in world government. Kings reap the benefits, peasants pay all the price. Doesn't matter if it's a corporation that promises to build infrastructure and skims millions off the top, an official that supports war but never has fought in one, or a rich religious nut that convinces the poor and desperate to blow themselves up, but would never risk his own neck.

And what monsters are we making for the next generation with the war we fight today? What kind of mess are we going to have when those troops come hope to a VA system that still can't handle Vietnam's casualties?

Just explain again how mass murder isn't the fault of those who flew the planes into the buildings but rather the blame is on those that trained them.

You might as well blame the education systems that taught these people how to think and add and spell. W/out those tools many of these people would be walking vegetables. If I show you how to use an axe to split wood, then you take it and cleave the skull of someone you don't like....how is it my fault that you did that? We have become a culture that seems to want to make excuses for all behavior, mostly I suspect b/c people wish to shed the idea of personal responsibility. Therefore, it's not SH's fault he killed/tortured so many of his own people. It's the evil *snip* @the CIA who "put him in power". Or pick anyone of the atrocities commited in Africa over the last 50 years and blame it squarely on european colonialism. Or better yet, blame the 3 Stooges the next time someone kills someone with a pick-axe. :rolleyes:

If I show you how to use an axe to split wood, then you take it and cleave the skull of someone you don't like....how is it my fault that you did that?

It is your fault.

You gave him the weapons and the training needed to do the crime. Sure, he wanted to do the crime, but without those weapons and training, he wouldn't have done them in the first place. He could have gotten them elsewhere, but if he did, the people that gave him the training would have been responsible.

Oh, and France, USSR, Kuwait, and Britian helped to support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Should we blame them as well?

Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid.
Trust me, I don't think a southern accent makes someone dumb, or even sound dumb. Stuttering or become tongue tied isn’t a sign of stupidity either.

What makes me think Bush has below average intelligence is his inability to accept that he could possibly make a mistake. To me it is more intelligent to admit you are wrong, when evidence to the fact is clear, and then work hard to correct your error, instead of just continuing to state you are right no matter the evidence to the contrary. It all the more important to evaluate your decisions when others may die based on those decisions.

Has Bush admitted that we have troops in the middle of a civil war? No, then that proves my point. While saying something 50 times the same way does not make it a fact, by the same token, ignoring something all together does not make go away. Bush as yet to learn either and that is what makes me question his intelligence. Much the same way he has question mine by not being straight with the American people.

SS, you're wrong. It is only the fault of the perp himself/herself for the actions they commit. Once again, are you're educators at fault for teaching you how to read, write, and add if you then take that knowledge and go to the internet to learn how to construct pipe bombs? No, you are for misapplication of that knowledge. Nobody else is responsible for YOUR decision. Just b/c you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.

SS, you're wrong. It is only the fault of the perp himself/herself for the actions they commit. Once again, are you're educators at fault for teaching you how to read, write, and add if you then take that knowledge and go to the internet to learn how to construct pipe bombs? No, you are for misapplication of that knowledge. Nobody else is responsible for YOUR decision. Just b/c you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.

I disagree. You indeed play a role, and you need to realize that. You cannot totally claim that a person is TOTALLY responsible for his deed, and it's not your fault as well. You gave someone the tools, and if they use them right or wrong, you are responsible for that. He used the tools, but you gave it to him. Therefore, you share in the pain.

You said you didn't know the guy was going to use the deed for evil? Well, then, you should have done a background check to make sure that person was not going to do it for evil. It's like handing out axes to the local asylum and then wondering why they became mass murderers.

Education can be used for anything, both good and evil. Therefore, if I teach a person something, and that person used that knowledge for something wrong, why should I escape punishment? I gave him that knowledge. He used it for something wrong, but I gave him it. It's like giving a person a loaded gun and having that person use that loaded gun. The person is responsible for firing the loaded gun, but who gave him that loaded gun? ME. I should get punished for that, no? It was me who gave him the tools, and it is me who gave the gun that allowed for HIM to kill. I killed, alright? I cannot stress that enough. Anyone could have gave him the gun, but I was the one who gave him the gun, and therefore, I was the one who made him be what he is, I made him kill.

How much punishment should you get though? There's the question. The answer is likely none. But I do believe you are responsible, and you must accept that responsiblity instead of blaming it totally on the the murderer. This discussion on responsiblity has very little to do with this topic, and it's all based on personal belief. (I don't even believe in free will and personal responsiblity.)

We're going to have to disagree. You might as well blame the mother simply for bringing that child into the world in the first place.

But, technically, various posts throughout this thread don't actually address taking it out on the troops, but rather the mechanics of governance in the US, a somewhat tangential topic as well.

Okay, what really irks me is people blaming the US for the fact that some people buy into religious extremism...

How much blame, if any, do the following people carry for September 11?

Mohamed Atta al-Sayed. Hani Hanjour. Majed Moqed. Khalid Almihdhar. Nawaf Alhazmi. Ziad Jarrah. Osama Bin Laden. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush. Bill Clinton. Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell.

The president is attempting to say that Congress needs to just give him the money to do as he pleases and shove their dissent. And Congress is trying to say that they, as representatives of the people, can't in good concioncince just keep forking over the money to him for his war.

But I guess that means that Bush is really a Sith Lord in disguise and that he plans to turn the US into his Empire once he has enough power over the congress.

It's not a matter of balance of power. It's a matter on how the power is being used. I don't think that the troops are being misfunded at any rate, jst mistreated. And I live on the other side of the world to the US, BTW, just so you know.

But people are dying at Bush's hands becaues of his blind stubborness. He has become a crusader! He forces every country to be a democracy, and if they don't agree, he basically tears down the country, hiding behind the words of "For the good of both countries!" Iraq was a stable country before the war, and now its a mess. Did anyone ever think of the troops, fighting against their will most of the time? You can say that I am something of a pacifist, but I would preffer the suffering of a stable dictatorship that the daily bombing and geonice that Iraq is now. "OMG! its da troops falt! dey fought! OMG! blam de troops!" It's Bush's damn fault!

Is it blind stubborness, or is Bush right and Congress wrong? Seriously there are some pretty good arguments that support Bush's stance, Bush isn't good at communicating things to others, but that doesn't mean he's stupid or wrong.

A President should not cater to popular opinion when fighting a war. That's also why he tends to be closed mouthed about things. Should the US have pulled out of WW 2 due to the casualties we were taking after finally entering it?

Should Lincoln have given up on fighting to preserve the United States because it was unpopular?

3401 and 25,245 are the only polling numbers that matter. These numbers represent an American father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister that has been killed and wounded in this war. Another important number is 63,610 the conservative number of civilians reported killed in Iraq since the war began.

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.

Is it being taking out on the troops? With 28,646 killed and wounded and who knows how many affected mentally for the rest of their lives, I’d say yes, it is being taken out on the troops.

Comparied to 618,000 people killed on both sides in the American Civil War? Seriously, I know this sounds cold, but people die in war.

Very true and technology advancements have made the killing and the protecting of human life more efficient since the Civil War. If we were fighting this war with Civil War technology then the loss of life would be greater than the number killed thus far in this war. War gives us great advancement in medical technology and we have gone from a wounded soldier being killed to merely being disfigured for the rest of their life.

I understand they are soldiers and that is their job. Their job is to protect our freedoms even at the cost of their limbs or very life. Remember the government and the people also have a responsibility to them due to their service to us. We should not unnecessarily be putting them in harms way. We must keep our promises to them and not be extending their duty beyond the agreed limits. We must get them any and all equipment necessary to protect them from harm.

What I’ve been trying to say is Bush needs to be more flexible. When something is not working he needs to be willing to change our strategy. I’m not saying pull out! Even though it was Bush that made the promise to the Iraqi people, he is our legally elected President, so it was a promise made by the American people. If the Iraqi government and people are unwilling to make their country work then and only then we need to get out. I just want Bush to listen to the so called experts and be willing to modify his strategy and do what is the best interest of the American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

If this does turn out to be a full born Iraq Civil War then we must be willing to pull out. The world was told by Bush that we are there to liberate the Iraqi people, not as conquers.

The problem is that a fair bit of the violence is due to Iranian special ops trying to incite violence as well as providing IEDs.

There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
You have any idea what the shelf life is of biological weapons like say anthrax? Not very long. To be honest I haven't trusted anything the govt. has said about his supposed weapons of mass destruction. I haven't trusted anything since the fool in the big white house with the pillars in the front came into office.

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.
I do think that better attention should have been paid as to how this campaign was to be staged. Of course the hardcores say that it is war and in war people die. Yes people do die in war but at what point do we stop and take a look as to how it affects the bigger picture?

The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers,

You do realize this Commander and Chief is a useless failure? :)

These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.
I think that is obvious now. :)

Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.

I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.


After 9/11 Clinton and any other elected official would have done what they were elected to do and been the Commander and Chief. One difference they would of headed straight for Washington instead of hiding out till the danger was gone. The major difference between Clinton or any other sane and intelligent President in our history and the current George Bush is we would still have world support for our fight against terrorist. After 9/11 we had the world’s sympathy and support, but thanks to President Bush’s outstanding leadership we only really have England’s support now. With Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping down even that support is weakened. Even his father knew the importance of world support in fighting a war. This go it alone and we are always right mentality is not appropriate for five years old and certainly not appropriate for the leader of the free world (although I do not see the US as leader of the free world any longer).

I don’t understand why Bush supporters want to go after Clinton all the time. After all he is one of the few people on earth that say you can’t blame Bush for the lack of WMD in Iraq. He stated on CSPAN from the University of Arkansas that he would have made that same mistake. However, he felt the there was still not enough evidence to overthrow the countries leadership and that it was more important to go after the instigators of 9/11.

Clinton had/has a flawed personal life, but overall he was a successful President. Will Bush Presidency be considered a success? Only time will time and Iraq will tell. If he doesn’t solve the problem with Iraq before the end of his current term (highly unlikely), then it was a failed Presidency.

I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

He isn't a cowboy, he really is a city boy that wants to be a cowboy.

Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.

Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.


Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.

Seriously, Clinton had several terrorist attacks occur during his administration, and he let Bin Laden go anyways, he also pardoned terrorists so Hillary could get elected as Senator of New York. So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.

Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.
I don't believe Bush is evil, I do believe he is a racist (Hurricane Katrina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina) ) and a idiot.
So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.
Laughable !
What in the hell are you talking about, this guy is the worst president in the history of presidents. :lol:
This is not a wise commander in chief, his policies are wasting lives over there in a war that is an obvious stalemate.
About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 60 (2 x 30 days) per month and if the rate continue about 730 (2 x 365 days) per year, base on the death toll now which is 3,401 as of May 16, 2007.
But two deaths may result tomorrow.
And the wounded is huge, at least 25,378 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
That include loss sight, loss hearing, loss limbs, loss feeling in the limbs and etc.
You might as well say, it includes everything that can be related to being wounded, like PTSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_Stress_Disorder) (Post-traumatic stress disorder), with that some soldiers who survive and came back home have blown their brains out because of that nightmare there.
The things this guy does is nonsense, GarfieldJL. :disaprove
Not to mention how he is destroying our liberties with that damn patriot act or probably something else he maybe working on.

If you think this guy is a good president then you are lost.

Also I know some will argue that those fatality figures
are small, but this isn't WWII as some have compare Iraq to, we aren't fighting for survivable of the planet in Iraq, we aren't fighting the Nazis, the Nazis are all but extinct, Hitler is not in Iraq.
It was suppose to be a peace keeping operation, not a war.
You don't suppose to lose this many people in a peace keeping operation, but
thanks to that idiot's polices, he have gotten us into a stalemate, that is a disgrace to the troops and dishonorable. :disaprove
They are dying for nothing over there.
The Iraqi government is useless and corrupt, I don't see them taking control of their future for a long time to come.
Only if someone in the civilian population, step up.
If there is someone who really still give a damn about their country's future.

Our troops should be in Darfur stoping that genocide from happening, but because of racist Bush, in which he don't give a damn for Africans, so they continue to perish, when is someone is going to get mad as hell in that administration and do something about the
genocide in Darfur, how many more have to be murder there, I guess a million in like in Rwanda.

About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 420 (14 x 30 days) per month,

That should read 60/month, not 420.

Also, Clinton wasn't a good president. However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well. Think massive govt spending, poor border security and immigration policies and ineffective management of the war in Iraq. However, it will be interesting to see where presidential historians place these men in about 15-20 years. Reagan was roundly abused during his terms in office, but has since become more highly rated with the passage of time.

That should read 60/month, not 420.
You are right, Totenkopf, well when you work with complex differential equations like I do you forget simple arithmetic. :)

However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well.

An extreme disapointment, Totenkopf. :)

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing."
-Dwight Eisenhower

Too bad he'd never make it in the modern GOP

Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State. The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President. Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).

GarfieldJL is the Governor of Louisiana in charge of FEMA? No, then she isn’t the only one to blame for what happen during Katrina. The federal government (which Bush presumably is in charge of), the state government, the Parish government and the city government all failed in their responsibility to their citizens.

Did it have anything to do with the race of those in need? I would like to think it didn’t. Did it have anything to do with the economic status of the victims? Again I’d like to think not, but I’m not that stupid. Compare the response to 9/11 and you get your answer. When the financial capital of the world was struck every government agency was there almost before the towers hit the ground. You can say that was because of the location differences, but that does not wash. There was no warning to 9/11, but with a Hurricane you do some type of warning.

The media also failed miserably by focusing too much on who was to blame and New Orleans. Parts of Mississippi were wiped off the face of the earth, but all we heard about was New Orleans.

Much like Iraq, Bush focused on the wonderful job everyone was doing instead of kicking his agencies in the seat of their pants and getting the job done. That and flying Air Force One 10,000 feet over the area gave people the impression Bush was out of touch or just didn’t care.

Do I believe Bush is a racist? I have no way of seeing into his heart. Therefore I do not believe anyone but George Bush can answer that question. Do I believe he is to blame for what happen during Katrina? Yes and so are a lot of other people. I just hope we have learned our lesson and don’t let history repeat itself. I also hope we don’t have to put those lessons to use this year.


Do I think Bush is evil? No. I actually think he is a good man. I just question his leadership ability or lack there of. Something he was actually good at as Texas Governor. I’ve heard people say that he is listening to the wrong people and blaming everything that has gone wrong on Chaney and/or Rumsfeld, but they are there/were there at the President’s pleasure. He can get rid of them at anytime. I question Bush's intelligence because he got rid Colon Powell and kept them.

Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State.
Don't give me that bull about Condoleezza Rice, that women is a puppet of Bush, she is just a token brown women, to make Bush look like he care for African Americans, he don't give a damn about people with my brown skin color.
I thought she would be p--- off about what's happing in Darfur, but she isn't doing nothing, useless Secretary of State.
Thousands continue to die under her watch in Darfur.
Why do you think Colin Powell left?
Because Bush policies made him look like a fool when he went to the U.N. over a lie.

The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President.Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).


If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.
And don't give that bull about federal law.
Bush is violating the law now with his spying programs.
Bush should have said, damn that and did something, that is a useless excuse, if it won't brown people out there drowning, I bet he would got his ass up and done something, I assume, unless he is completely useless.

Also I'm about tire of hearing about this left wing media, to put it clearly I don't trust media anyway because they don't investigate UFO reports, like some other media around the world.
There is no left wing media there is a lying media.
But if the news about Katrina, his spying programs and other reports are a lie then you can't trust nothing completely from the news.
Not even the weather.
So, to me it's 50/50 when it come towards the media info.
I'm damn sure not going to watch FOX news they are obviously bias toward everybody except republicans.

If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.
windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.

On Bush, a lot of it goes back to the 2000 elections when people were outraged that he won. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that people have been looking for a reason to attack him, and Iraq has been by far the biggest and most legitimate reason to go after him. Is that his only crime? No I don't think so. Is he evil? Absolutely not, Is Bill Clinton better or worse than Bush? The biggest criticism I can label at him is cutting the military, cutting away muscle rather than fat. But the problem is he was crucified over the Monica Lewinski scandal, just the same as Bush is now being crucified for Iraq.

windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.
Ok, Jae, I'm not trying to entice no one into a argument.
I guess my red colors is threating to some, I'm not trying to start no arguments with anyone.
Let me clear some things up here, for you won't think all the time when I use red colors I'm mad at someone.
These the words I usually color in red and don't think that I'm mad at you when post this below, this is how I'm. :)
I hate death, I hate the Holocaust, I hate genocide I hate the Nazis, eventhough they are extinct I still hate them same for Hitler, I hate evil
and racist= Holocaust.

I'm not a mean person, I'm extremely far from that, Jae. :)
I care far to much for what happen to the people in the Holocaust, to be evil. *

I'm not saying you think about me that way, but I suspect some here do.

You are completely beside the point: it's not a matter of who is evil and who isn't. It's not about the colors of the fonts either. It's about the content of your posts and the fact that you've been calling other members "ignorant", "closed-minded", "naive and crazy" or telling them things like "If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking" when they don't agree with you. Criticize the ideas/opinions if you want but do it in a respectful manner and avoid attacking the person behind those ideas. You've been doing it a lot recently and we won't tolerate this any longer. I hope this clears things out.

Now, back on topic - if you wish to answer this post, PM me. I'll pass on the messages to the rest of the staff. -d3

windu, I actually looked at wikipedia and actual Federal Law to cross-reference the Katrina stuff. Federal Law clearly points out that it is the Governor has to give permission for the National Guard to be called in, which the Governor did not do. Thus President Bush's hands were tied on the matter. What you're saying Bush should have done was against Federal Law. The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthy is because they are under a lot more scrutiny by the Left-Wing Mainstream Media hoping that Fox News will screw up so they can bash them into the ground.

The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthyIn what sense? To provide unbiased journalism?

Perhaps he means "less biased".....

I mean the mainstream media outlets are waiting with baited breath to bash them if they misreport something because they can't stand the fact that Fox News exists.