Is this what you'd expect from your Military?

[Ultimate Charizard]

Well when it comes to the oil prices your view is very 'small picture'.
If for example nothing had been done, and Iraq (and other Middle East countries) decided not to supply Europe with Oil then Europe would also have to go to the same Sources the US use. Now supply and demand dictates that with High Demand and Limited supply prices would rise globally.
And you keep stating all these Attacks on American citizens but as ive already mentioned Terrorism isnt just aimed at America. You havent mentioned anything of the American support, training and Funding of a military faction resorting to bombing innocent targets over here in England.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes and I appologise about that UC, in reality I would rather have a grandious debate with you on MSN rather than on here since the topic on here seems to change as rapidly as the hour. As for American Support for Terrorism, yes we did support military factions, we also supplied money to Iraq back when we were fighting with Iran. I would hope that this country has learned from that and changed from it's past actions in the past. In truth all countries supply terrorism in sometime in their history, either directly or indirectly. Yet in truth Saddam's financing and training of Bin Laden's terrorists had dangerous reprocussions all over the world. The same could be said for the U.S. and their supply for terrorism in Europe, yet the truth is that is one of many reasons that we went after Iraq. We wanted to stop Bin Laden and the finance and training Al Qaeda was reciving and Iraq was their chief supplier. Not to mention Iraq has been known to harbor terrorsts such as the first WTC bomber.

[Dark Dragonite]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Osama Bin Laden is behind all of this, when the Bush family has had close ties to the Bin Laden family for years?

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah except the Bin Laden family has like 80 members, some are hard working U.S. Citizens that have never met that member of their family. Also Osama has basically been kicked out of his family, and the family no longer has contact with him when he showed his psycological ties. I mean every family has a black sheep in them, it's not fair to damn a entire family for the actions of one.

[Ultimate Charizard]

And in the same respect its not fair to damn a whole country/nation/religion based on the actions of a few madmen.

[Roy Karrde]

The difference being that you don't damn the country, you damn the man and take him out. You follow that by trying to rebuild and change the autrocities the man did to that country so that they may re-enter the world as a stable, upright society. And anyone to damn a religion for the actions of a few idiots, should remember that every religion has had idiots use it to create death in destruction.

[Dark Dragonite]

there had to ba an alternative...there was too much collateral damage...the damning of one man, and "taking him out", which, right now he is in court, and God only knows how long that will take, and the result, and how many Iraqi civilians were killed wrongly by our forces? How many buildings, homes just wiped out by our "righteous justice"?
there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...

[Gengachu]

What I'd Like? no.
What I'd Expect? yes.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. I'm against us being there at all.

[Chris]

there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...

You're kidding me, right?

Please, please tell me you're joking.

[Roy Karrde]

there had to ba an alternative...there was too much collateral damage...the damning of one man, and "taking him out", which, right now he is in court, and God only knows how long that will take, and the result,

Result: Pretty much he will be dead by next year. Most likely hanged infront of all of Iraq.

and how many Iraqi civilians were killed wrongly by our forces? How many buildings, homes just wiped out by our "righteous justice"?

War is a ugly buisness, but how many buildings, homes, and civilians were going to be wiped out by Saddam if we didn't step in? He was going after Nukes, we know that. There was the possibility of him still having WMDs which he used to kill Hundreds of Thousnads. So I will ask you this, how many Iraqi Civilians have to be killed before we step in? 100,000? 1 Million? 10 Million? How much money and training needs to go to Al Qaeda before we step in? How many more Iraqi Funded Al Qaeda attacks need to happen till we step in? How many Al Qaeda officers does Iraq need to defend and provide shelter to until we step in?

there could have been a real simple solution, get your best snipers, someone could have done it with 1 shot, and a lot less than the 2000+ soldiers we lost, and thousands they lost...

You're kidding right? For one we have a law against the assassination of foreign officials and leaders. Second he had ten or twenty doubles of himself, so we run the risk of assassinating one of them. And then we are in all different kinds of shit, becuase Saddam would double his attempts to get weapons and then point the blame on the assassination on a smaller target. Now lets say just by chance we do kill Saddam. That we do get lucky and hit him and not one of his lookalikes that he has and uses for Public appearances. Then his son takes power, his son that runs rape houses and picks women and little girls up off the street and rapes them over and over. His son that is so psycotic that he makes the leader of Iran and North Korea look like the saints.

So how about we wipe his two sons out while we are at it? Then you have a massive power vaccume in place in which you run a damn good risk of getting some one just like Saddam in power since it would be some one promoted inside his orginization. Then you are back to Square One, only now it's worse becuase Iraq is pissed as hell and looking for revenge, and we have lost any and all chance of going into Iraq, becuase the U.S. now has a repetation on par with the Mafia of going out and knocking off anybody we don't like.

[Dark Dragonite]

I'm the conspiracy theorist, but you're speaking of WMDs that were never found, and Bush admitted he went on false information...

[Roy Karrde]

At the time we did not know that he didn't have him. Saddam was playing a cat and mouse game of letting inspectors in to certain places while not in others. He would make them wait outside for hours on end for no apparent reason. Lets not forget that he has used WMDs in the past on his own people which led to the Genoside killing of hundreds of thousands. So he did have them in the past. Also the information of him having Chemical WMDs was varified by many, MANY intelligance agencies, from the CIA, to British, to French, to Italian, to other intel services. All saying there was a possibility he still had WMDs.

Anyway I will quit rambling, he had them in the past, used them on his own people. Still had the plans to reactivate the program as his own audio tapes point out, and was activly trying to get Nukes as British Intel stands by even today. Those are the facts of Saddam's WMD program.

[Dark Dragonite]

He never used nukes...he used nerve gas on the kurds...which, Roy, if you didn't know, we helped him develop...Saddam was the lesser of the 2 evils, and we helped him defeat Iran years ago...The US, as in

Quote of Dubya: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
August 5, 2004

Well, he's right about that...

who supplied Hussein with such weapons back in the 1980's? That would be the US to help Iraq beat Iran in the Iran-Iraq war (along with other countries). And when Hussein used chemicals on his own people, and we knew of it, what did we do? We remained on friendly, diplmatic ties with him to serve, as the State dpt called it, "our interests." This was done IN SPITE of HEATED opposition in Congress.

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

want more proof of the Bush's right hand man pedling weapons to Saddam in the 80's?

http://www.nsmnj88.com/multimedia/vi...sadam_high.wmv

The Duelfer report, ISG called off the search for WMD, even for movement across the Iraqi border, in June of this year. Now if you have a problem with these findings, take it up with them - write to them - I'm sure they have time to answer you now that they're not searching for WMD anymore.

[Roy Karrde]

Where, did I ever say he had nukes? Point it out please. Now what I did say is that he was trying to get Nukes, which is true, I have posted the British Intel link of 2004 three times on this forums, and I will not post it a forth. If you want the proof then go look for it yourself. Also I have never said we didn't give Saddam weapons, we did, the problem is he started using them against his own people and would have continued if the UN didn't place sanctions on him in 1992. Saddam never complied with those sanctions fully and thus that alone could be used for War. Saddam financed Al Qaeda which could be used as a reason of war against him. Saddam tried to have a former President assassinated, which could be used as a act of war against him. Saddam shot at U.S. aircraft in the no fly zone, which could be used as a act of war against him. The list just goes on and on and on.

[Dark Dragonite]

Well, actually, you mentioned on pg.2 that we "went in to scare the **** out of them, look how Syria and them gave up nukes."
Hence, I assumed, like most people, when you mention WMD, you mean nukes...yes, nerve gas can be deadly, but a nuke is probably the most destructive weapon around.
Isn't the other reason you stated we went in was to find WMD?

Why was US aircrafts in the no fly zone...isn't it a no fly zone?

[Roy Karrde]

US aircrafts were patrolling the No Fly Zone, it was set up by the UN to keep Saddam from launching anymore WMDs on his own people. Saddam never had nukes, he was trying his best to accuire them, and I never have said he had them. He did have Nerve Gas which is why we went in, which is considered a WMD. Syria on the other hand was already close to finishing or had finished their Nukes, and when they saw us go into Iraq, they agreed to give up their Nuke program and turn it all over to the UN.

[Ultimate Charizard]

Right so simply the development of nuclear technology is a threat of war? I though technological advancement was a part of any country. Or does this again go down to "were ok to have them but we say your not"?

Your basically admitting that the US would have pencilled in Syria as the next target for invasion simply because they have nuclear tech. Its the same reason they want to go into Iran and Iran dont have weapons grade tech, they have a Nuclear Power Plant, for cheaper, cleaner energy (the same reason the US say theyre looking to advance Nuclear Tech)
It basically boils down to one thing. The USA are (Politically) self serving Bullies.
Oh and btw The UK Prime Minister has actually admitted that he acted on inconclusive information over the presence of WMD's. He was just more interested in keeping good relations with 'Dubya' (god knows why) and blindly followed him into war.

[Roy Karrde]

Development of a nucular bomb will lead to the threat of sanctions by the UN and inspections by the IAEA. The last thing this world needs is every country in the Middle East developing Nukes. Especially countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Now I never said the US would have penceled in Syria as the next target for invasions, what I was trying to say was the US was making a statement. No longer would we just sit idly by and allow unstable countries gain control of one of the most powerful weapons known to man, and just wait until they use them against us or our friends.

Now if you believe Iran wants to build a Nuclear Power Plant, then you really havn't been keeping up with events. Iran has turned down deals to have Uranium inriched in Russia and thus preventing them from getting the materials needed to make a Nuke, and allowing them to still keep a Nuclear Power Plant, and they have turned down the deal for a free light water reactor. Basically we were giving them the tech for a Nuclear Power Plant as long as they did not build a Heavy Water Reactor, which can produce the materials needed for a Nuke.

Iran wants a Nuke, and they most likely want to use it to either attack Isreal, or to attack Europe. Both have been targets mentioned by Iran in the last few weeks as possible targets for them to hit when they get their Bomb. Mind you this is the Iran President making these threats.

Also the UK Prime Minister may have admitted to have acted on inconclusive information on WMDs, yet WMDs wasn't the main reason we went to war against Iraq. It was one of the NINE reasons and UN rule violations that Iraq had broken in the last few years, each one could be used as a excuse to invade. The media has just chosen to focus on the WMD aspect of the war and not the other eight reasons.

[Razola]

Basically. unstable counties having nukes is a bad thing.

[Blademaster]

Basically. unstable counties having nukes is a bad thing.

...

Ummmmmmmm...

The United States has nukes...

O_o

[Roy Karrde]

The US also has safeguards on their Nukes, submits to the IAEA, and does not want to use their nukes to wipe countries off the face of the map becuase their religion says so. To compare any major nation with nukes, to Iran or any other middle east country striving to recieve nukes at the moment. Just amazes me beyond anything, so I hope that you are kidding.

[Blademaster]

Yeah, I am - I wouldn't compare the U.S. with Iran or some other religious-nutcase country (though GWB himself is a religious nutcase).

But this country isn't the most stable on Earth - you gotta agree with me on THAT, at least... :p

[Roy Karrde]

Lets see, we have been in several wars since the creation of nukes, we have only used them on one occasion. We have not had a coup of our government, we have never had a dictator rise to power, the country is still run by the people and for the people, and we peacefully ellect a new leader every four to eight years. Would you mind telling me how this country is unstable? Becuase from all that I have seen the country is quite stable.

[Dark Dragonite]

well, the last 2 elections weren't that peaceful, the people for whom this country is run do not approve of what the president is doing, but he does it anyway...
Dictator- a ruler who is unconstrained by law ...well, we have wire taps happening without the balancing departments of government approving them, Bush threatens to veto anything he doesn't like...
Even you have to admit, the "checks and balances" haven't been working too well recently...
We have a president selected not by the vast voting majority, but by electoral votes, which do not accurately portray what the people want...
In a sense, Democracy is flawed...and we are perfecting each flaw for others to see...

[Roy Karrde]

well, the last 2 elections weren't that peaceful,

Did anyone die during them? Was anyone placed in prision for going against the mainstream? Were their mass rioting in the streets?

the people for whom this country is run do not approve of what the president is doing, but he does it anyway...

Presidential Approval numbers rise and fall, as is the way of politics. The President should never have to base his or her Presidency on what the people do and do not approve of. Clinton did that and it was disasterous for the country. Anyway the reason I say that, is that a President is prevy to information every day that the common people do not recieve, and thus needs to make decisions based on that information, and we base our opinions on those decisions even while not knowing the full story. I for one would never ever want a President that governs by how the people feel at the moment, a President should look beyond that and do what he or she thinks is best for the country in the long term.

Dictator- a ruler who is unconstrained by law ...well, we have wire taps happening without the balancing departments of government approving them, Bush threatens to veto anything he doesn't like...

The last time I checked the constitution, the President had the right to veto, although I could be wrong and some one could have snuck in and changed it with some white out. The wire taps from all that I have heard are legal, if they were not then we would be having hearings on par with Watergate right now, instead we have a few people making noise for the sake of being re-elected and that is it. And we have not had a President that is anything near a dictator at any time of our history, we have had a Governor, but not a President. If we did, we would have State run television, State run Newspapers, people being jailed for voting against him, or people being killed for voting against him. For further info see: Saddam Hussain

Even you have to admit, the "checks and balances" haven't been working too well recently...

As far as I know, bills are still passed by congress, and the President still has veto power over them, Congress has the power to check on the President, and the Supreme Court still has the power to strike down a law.

We have a president selected not by the vast voting majority,

Bush was ellected with more than 4 million more votes in 2004

but by electoral votes,

As set forth by the founding fathers, if we didn't have the system every politician would be in Texas, California, and New York. You have the most amount of the population in those three states and if you win them then you basically get a majority vote.

which do not accurately portray what the people want...

No it doesn't portray what you want. Most people were fine when Bush was ellected and were sick of Gore's whining and only wanting to recount Democrat counties in Florida. If you're guy had won then I am sure you would be singing a different tone right now.

In a sense, Democracy is flawed...and we are perfecting each flaw for others to see...

No system is perfect, yet Democracy right now is the best inperfect system that we have. It is constantly evolving and changing, yet at the same time we must not forget some of the reasons why the founding fathers placed some of those rules in place such as the Electoral College. People alot smarter than you or I, thought long and hard so that we could have the best inperfect system available, and we must not forget that, and have the forsight to see past our own political bigotry to see why those systems are in place.

[Dark Dragonite]

Explain the Patriot Act, by what it says, if I so much as openly bash President Bush to a certain extent, I can be arrested as a terrorist...

We had people thinking up the electoral college how many decades ago? Things have changed, and a president would not be picked from NY, Texas, or Cali if we went by Majority votes, he/she would be elected by the majority of the country, for who they want in office. Doesn't the Electoral college make it so that NY, Cali, Texas have a bigger say in who wins?

You're quick to remark, but had Gore or Kerry won, you'd be singing a different tune yourself, wouldn't you?

62,040,606
-59,028,109
3,012,497

987,503 off...I bet they feel their votes didn't matter...how many people do you think don't bother voting, because in this system, if you're a democrat in a republican state, your vote really doesn't mean anything...if it went by majority...I could 99.99999999999% guarentee voting numbers would go up dramatically.

[Ultimate Charizard]

Since i missed the earlier posts ill bring this point up now.

It was said that the US are stable because they have guidelines on Nukes and dont want to use them, having only had to once before.

Now by having HAD to resort to using nukes you mean completely levelling 2 highly populated civilian cities in Japan.

Before you start banging on about how the rules are there for countries to abide by, the rules wouldnt even be there if it wasnt for America deploying nuclear weapons. The US was the first to employ nuclear weaponry and im just curious to ask how many other atomic bombs have been used in history?

[Roy Karrde]

Explain the Patriot Act, by what it says, if I so much as openly bash President Bush to a certain extent, I can be arrested as a terrorist...

Yes becuase we have had so many people arrested for openly bashing President Bush. Oh God I hope they release Michael Moore soon, and I hope they release Cindy Sheehan soon and all the other people that bash President Bush. How about reading the act next time before making assumptions?

We had people thinking up the electoral college how many decades ago? Things have changed, and a president would not be picked from NY, Texas, or Cali if we went by Majority votes, he/she would be elected by the majority of the country, for who they want in office. Doesn't the Electoral college make it so that NY, Cali, Texas have a bigger say in who wins?

NY, Texas, and Cali hold most if not the majority of the people in this country. If you went by Majority vote and when most of the people in those three states then it would be a easy ride.

You're quick to remark, but had Gore or Kerry won, you'd be singing a different tune yourself, wouldn't you?

If either had won I would have acknowledged that the system did it's job. Yet if Gore did win after whining and whining and only recounting Democrat Counties instead of all the Counties, then I would be a bit pissed that we have a baby in the White House. Luckily he didn't win.

I bet they feel their votes didn't matter...how many people do you think don't bother voting, because in this system, if you're a democrat in a republican state, your vote really doesn't mean anything...if it went by majority...I could 99.99999999999% guarentee voting numbers would go up dramatically.

Actually I bet it would go down, mostly in the mid western states and in rural states in which people would give up since all the big states that have 10 mil or more people would gain all the coverage, and their state wouldn't matter much., but I guess to you those votes didn't matter much right? Also I was going by a rounding total, he won near 4 million more votes and was one of the largest amount of votes a President has recieved. As for the people that vote democrat in a republican state, in most state elections we have it divided up into counties, such as Dallas county is a Democrat county and most of the time they vote democrat. Now if you truely want to change your state's colors you go out and campeign and you talk to people. People make a difference, look at Cindy Sheehan, not the most sane person ever, but she got people to listen to her.

Now by having HAD to resort to using nukes you mean completely levelling 2 highly populated civilian cities in Japan.

Yes I do, becuase in that situation we were at risk of killing millions in a ground campeign. We used it twice, knew the responcability of our actions, and wanted to finish a long and bloody war, that if continued would kill Civilians and Soldiers on both sides. Is that a excuse to use them now? No becuase we have better technology and we learn from our actions, you learn from your actions and we used them at the best possible manner to finish a war that would take millions of more lives, and a war that Japan could not possibly win.

Before you start banging on about how the rules are there for countries to abide by, the rules wouldnt even be there if it wasnt for America deploying nuclear weapons.

I beg to differ, at the moment we were developing our Nukes, so was Russia, and a host of other countries. Eventually some one would use the weapon against another country and the rules would eventually be put in place. The difference being would the weapons be used to bring a peaceful end to a war? Or would they be used to start a war?

The US was the first to employ nuclear weaponry and im just curious to ask how many other atomic bombs have been used in history?

We have lucked out and had none, want to roll the dice and give Iran nukes and see how long that lasts?

[Ultimate Charizard]

So you used the Nukes at the best possible time to save millions of lives....you forgot to say 'american' lives. Or are you counting those millions of japanese civilians as 'unnavoidable casualties of war?'
Have you ever read about what happens to people in a nuclear explosion? There is never any excuse for their use in my opinion but saying one lot can have them and another lot cant is hyprocticism.

[Roy Karrde]

The Japanese are a proud people, their Military was prepairing for a Coup so that they could continue on fighting. Civilians were being armed for the preperation of a invasion. They were going to fight house to house if they had to. That is why their leader had to record his message of surrender since the military was planning a Coup just after the second Nuke. If we had landed, it would have been worse than DDay, yes it would have lost thousands of American lives, along with Russian lives as they were preparing to invade also. But the damage and death to the Japanese people would be ten fold than any of the nukes. We would have to fight the Civilians every step of the way, along with their military. We would be dealing with a Insergency afterwards that would make the Iraqi one look like child's play, and the country would be in economic and structure ruin for years to come.

I guess the question should be, which is worse, the nuking of two towns and the killing of thousands, or the complete destruction of a country, and the killing of millions?

[Dark Dragonite]

the decision to drop bombs is one thing, but the US gave no warning to droping Nukes, which, being different from bombs in the suffering, and extended period of the land being uninhabitable...You give this country too much credit, and way too much leeway in the decisions made...

[Heald]

Judas Priest, such flagrant partisanship, with some of you taking what people like Michael Moore and other such folk as gospel and others unable to fault Bush whatsoever. None of you are exactly giving much, if any, evidence to back up your hyperbolic claims, and I mean both sides of the argument. Bush is not a dictator, the US is perfectly stable enough to have nukes and the US Election System has only come under fire ever since a couple of anti-Bush morons whined about it and decided to give half the country a bad name. Gore may have won the popular vote but he lost the electoral vote, get over it, he lost fair and square under the current election system and believe it or not to change the election system would require not just a constitutional amendment but a constitutional redraft. It has not happened since and is unlikely to happen again.

On the other hand, people who are defending Bush aren't really citing any examples, they are just calling Democratic politicians names and saying that recent Democratic Presidents were terrible without any justification, nor can they accept any negative criticism any Republican politicians get. Yes, politics is subjective and you are allowed to debate but this isn't debating, this is just two sides calling each other names and, if I recall, this was actually a discussion on whether we'd expect our/your military to kill defenceless soldiers mercilessly.

Also, you cannot compare the US nuking Japan to modern day standards. It was a war - if America had simply told Japan that they had the capability to blow the shit out of them with two bombs, Japan would just strengthen their anti-air capabilities. Also, as Roy said, the bombing was the lesser of two evils - a full scale invasion would have taken months, maybe even over a year and would have caused far worse losses and damage. Just because the US has used nukes before doesn't mean they'll use them again - that's like saying you can't give Germany insecticide because they might try to use it to kill the Jews again. I agree with unilateral nuclear disarmanent, but as it is, the nuclear deterrent is still needed in this day and age, and countries that are likely to use them, such as Iran, should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to have them.

You say this is hypocrisy? Okay, look at their records : the USA is under pressure to maintain good relations with the UN and if it ever used its nuclear weapons without justification then the economic sanctions against it would kill the country, plus there would be riots across the country, plus terrorists may attack more strongly against the US. Iran, on the other hand, is already on the UN's shit-list, couldn't give two shits about any other country and is ruled by a crazy idiot who maintains the theocracy and the majority of the electorate hate America as much as their President does, plus they really really hate Israel and would have no qualms with killing thousands of Israelis, even if it meant they were invaded.

There, that's it.

[Blademaster]

...

You know what, guys? Heald is right. We aren't really getting anywhere with this debate, which has gotten too off-topic already as it is. We're just causing tension here; I came to TPMF to make friends, not enemies...

So, I think I'm just gonna leave this thread behind - we're bickering like newlyweds for no reason...

Later, guys - don't kill each other while you're here, OK?

Peace out!

-Blade

[Roy Karrde]

Hey Blade don't worry about it, debating in Misc is something that is as normal as night and day. I really wish we had more of these since it seems that Misc has become so relaxed lately that it has forgotten it's routes and how back in the day we would have grandious 30 page debates on anything ranging from Politics to Abortion. So don't worry about making enemies, no one holds what you say against you here, trust me if they did I would have alot of enemies.

[Dark Dragonite]

I think MSN said it best:

"Ultimately, Bush’s Justice Department pressed the case against Enron — and won.

Still, when the history books are written, the debit side of the Bush Era ledger will include a line labeled “Kenny Boy.” That’s the nickname Bush gave the guy he later claimed he barely knew.

As Texas governor from 1995 to 2000, Bush and consiglieri Karl Rove cultivated the Enronites for their vast connections and money; more than that, Bush linked arms with Lay in the belief that market forces alone should guide the production, distribution and use of energy. But the theory ran riot at Enron, giving license to corporate buccaneers who blithely screwed consumers, employees and shareholders alike. The old saying applies to Enron: you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.



On the plus side

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE: Commentators made fun of Bush for advising Americans to go shopping after 9/11, but he had a valid aim in saying so. Osama Bin Laden himself said that his goal was to cripple the American economy, and since two thirds of that economy is based on consumer spending, the president’s instincts were on target. Analysts rightly wring their hands about the twin deficits in the federal budget and in the balance of trade. But in the face of the most devastating attack on the American homeland ever, the economy’s overall recovery was — and is — remarkable. Did Bush’s stimulative tax cuts help? In the short run, sure.

NO POST-9/11 ATTACKS ON THE HOMELAND: Americans know that another attack is not only possible, but, perhaps inevitable. The Bush Administration is smart not to make any sweeping claims on this front — they would look not only silly but tragic in an instant. The various Patriot Act and security measures the administration has undertaken are controversial, but voters seem to be willing to give the president considerable leeway — and a measure of approval (the best of all his numbers) for being a Tough Cop. Are we safer here because we are fighting the bad guys “over there?” Again, in the short run, maybe.
On the minus side

KENNY BOY CULTURE: Lay was among the people Dick Cheney consulted as part of his off-the-record task force on energy policy -- and they were brothers-in-arms in opposition to price caps. Beyond Lay is the growing sense that wealthy CEOs and others in their vicinity are prospering out of proportion to, and at the expense of, average Americans. Overall growth rates are strong, and the rising tide has lifted most boats, but there’s a sense in the country that the gap is growing between the Rich and the Rest. Even though the gap has been growing for years — it was characteristic of Bill Clinton’s time in office — Bush’s tax cuts leave him open to the accusation that he exacerbated the problem.

THE 16 NIGER WORDS: Bush’s statement that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa, since recanted, is and will forever remain one of the key moments of his presidency. It has come to encapsulate everything that was wrong, or dubious, about the decision to go to war in Iraq – one of the most important decisions any president has ever made. Now we know why Dick Cheney was so upset about attempts to undermine the Niger story: it provided a pathway into deeper questions about the justifications — or lack of them — for war.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: The president was talking about “major combat operations,” and in that sense he was right. But it turned out to be a distinction without a difference, and, in retrospect, the image of him strutting his stuff on the Abraham Lincoln became the photo op from hell — an ironic reminder not of success but of failure.

HECK OF A JOB BROWNIE: As we approach hurricane season, the country is hoping that New Orleans — and every other vulnerable location — survives intact. But the enduring legacy of Katrina is an eroded faith in leadership at all levels, including the presidency.

OBL ON THE LOOSE: Just the other day Osama bin Laden emerged from the shadows to defend the innocence of Zacarias Moussaoui. This latest audiotape was a reminder that, nearly five years after 9/11, the mastermind of Al Qaeda remains out there, somewhere. Initially, Americans liked the idea of a president who talked tough about capturing the evildoer, “dead or alive.” But if you want to be sheriff, you gotta get your man."

Oh, and there is the little fact of Bush using more vacation time than any president to date...during a "war" and other crisies...

[Roy Karrde]

Heh that just seems like that article has a bunch of "Wait and Sees" when it comes to several things. Such as the effort taken to stop any other terrorist attacks on American Soil, and that the Economy is on the rebound. I wonder if these people would use the same statement of "Wait and See" when we were coming out of the depression. It's quite sad to see some of the Political Bigotry in the Op Ed Collums today.

It's funny they want to point out the Niger problem, yet they fail to mention how British Intel has stood by their statement, even a year after the war started that Saddam was trying to buy materials from Niger. It's also funny that they kind of gloss over the whole point that Bush was RIGHT when standing on the Abe Lincoln and saying that Major Operations were over with. It's also funny how they neglect to mention that the whole responce to Katrina was the fastest time that FEMA has ever done, and that their is land and cities that were effected OUTSIDE of New Orleans that FEMA also had to deal with. Yet all is fair in Political Bigotry right?

Just thought I would point that all out.

[Heald]

Heald is right.

I've spent pretty much most of my post count trying to get people to understand it, and finally it is working. Hallelujah.

[Roy Karrde]

Ah one of the first things I learned here. Usually Heald is 90 to 100% right on most if not all subjects.

[Dark Dragonite]

Just out of curiosity Roy, Do you find Bush to be completely incapable of doing any wrong, or Republicans for that matter?

Has Bush, or any Republicans done anything wrong, like you say Democrats like Clinton have?

[Systematic Revolution]

Well... I haven't bothered reading all four pages of this. Just the first few posts, actually. But I'm going to throw out my beliefs. This is happening more than just with a couple jackasses. It happens a lot more than what we think. In fact, it happens infinitely more often than is reported in the media. There have been, what? Two or three cases of complete desecration of the code during the entire war reported? In reality, it happens every day. The general mentality is "those damn towel-heads need to die". Keep in mind, the general consensus of the US as a whole reflects our military. If there are hundreds of thousands or even a million people in the US NOT fighting in Iraq that think "kill all of the towel-heads", then that is going to reflect our military as well. Not to mention I know a guy who used to be in the airforce. He's been to Iraq before during this war and he's seen the mentality. He wants nothing to do with the military anymore. He feels that the soldiers are a disgrace to the US.

This kind of ignorance is going to destroy this country even faster than Bush. This war is going to destroy the human race. After Iraq, what's next? Iran. Then Syria. Eventually, every country with nuclear weapons will be invaded. That includes China, France, Israel (Maybe an exception here), Russia, the UK, India and Korea (probably both sides). All of 'em. The US is turning into a fascist country. I hear the words "for the country" from Bush's mouth a lot more often than "for the people of the US". Eventually we're just going to take 'em all out and take over. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, my friends. Bush has just admitted a few weeks ago that he has a log of every phone call made in the US since 9/11. That's fucking ridiculous and comlpetely unnecessary. He also noted that it was illegal but done in the name of "national security". This whole war is just going to turn into another Holocaust. Bring out the ovens because this isn't a war--it's a crusade. Bush is out there to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. We could very well see the annihilation of the world's oldest race in our lifetime, people. Where and when will it stop? It's horrible. Something needs done about all of this.

It is accepted that people suffer in war... But for Christ's sake... Just kill them. Don't draw out their deaths. It's unnecessary. Welcome to fascism.