uuuggg...the presidential address

[Laker]

Where have you been since 9-11?

I'll tell you where I've been since 9/11:

Trying not to vomit as I've watched more than 2,000 young men and women die in a war that was misdirected, poorly planned, and poorly executed.

Trying to understand the machinations of an administration who makes a decision, puts on blinders and does not stop to assess a situation and see where adjustments must be made.

I do not think that the "changes" that the Bush administration has put in place have made us safer. I think that they've made us considerably poorer, and have basically helped to fuel the fire and hatred of our country throughout the world (not just in the middle east).

Why do democrats only sit back and count bodies? We all hate to see our countrymen perish on the battlefield, but their sacrifice is not in vain. We are in a battle with idiology that will not cease until all Americans/non-radical muslims are dead. Do you honestly think that if we pull out and leave that the terrorists will stop plotting to destroy us? Why don't liberals condemn the 3,000+ deaths of innocent Americans that died from acts of terrorism? The media won't even show the planes hitting the buildings anymore because they want us to forget what we are up against. Did you want to turn the other cheek and wait for them to blow off a nuke in the U.S.? When it happens, we will have millions of Americans dead. Our only hope is to destroy them.

Bush has deferred to the Generals on the ground for military strategy. Please tell me how Kerry would have done it differently, besides not fighting back at all. They gave Kerry the forum to articulate how he would do things differently, and he failed miserably. The truth is, the democrats have not been able to articulate a plan to do things differently besides their cut and run strategy.

[rainbabies]

[PrincessFiona]

Why do democrats only sit back and count bodies? We all hate to see our countrymen perish on the battlefield, but their sacrifice is not in vain. We are in a battle with idiology that will not cease until all Americans/non-radical muslims are dead. Do you honestly think that if we pull out and leave that the terrorists will stop plotting to destroy us? Why don't liberals condemn the 3,000+ deaths of innocent Americans that died from acts of terrorism? The media won't even show the planes hitting the buildings anymore because they want us to forget what we are up against. Did you want to turn the other cheek and wait for them to blow off a nuke in the U.S.? When it happens, we will have millions of Americans dead. Our only hope is to destroy them.

Bush has deferred to the Generals on the ground for military strategy. Please tell me how Kerry would have done it differently, besides not fighting back at all. They gave Kerry the forum to articulate how he would do things differently, and he failed miserably. The truth is, the democrats have not been able to articulate a plan to do things differently besides their cut and run strategy.

I think it's poor form in any debate to try and paint an entire party with a single brush...it's an attempt to simplify the issues and polarize the party base.

First off....democrats don't just sit around and 'count bodies' and you know that to be true. There have been plenty of interesting discussions about the repercussions of a military attack in Iraq both before and after the invastion...with usefull information traded from both republicans and democrats. Interestingly, the criticisms that not only democrats, but some republicans (and military officers who were later relieved of their posts) and the european community dealt with the concerns of what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was gone...and basically...those fears have played out to be true.

Not only was another opinion not welcome, it was considered anti-american. Other options were provided....by democrats, by some republicans, by the world community...and Bush stood there drawing a line in the sand "y'er either fer us or agin us" and that was all she wrote.

Most democrats don't advocate a pull-out of troops...we are there and now we have to do something to keep the place from going up in flames. This is something that those fabulous generals on the ground though seem to not be able to do. Apparently now the military strategy is....anything goes?

We were warned though....and we should have also been able to use history as our guide. This administration considered itself impervious to any criticism and did not want to hear any other opinions or suggestions. Individuals within the administration who voiced another view often ended up on the outside.

Regarding the whole Nuke thing. Before we went into Iraq, it was apparent that N. Korea and Iran were greater nuclear threats than Iraq....they just weren't "easy" targets. Do you also have a great concern for the abominable conditions currently in N. Korea in the concentration camps there...where women are often forced to give birth to babies and then watch them be killed? Are you prepared to march our brave troops into N. Korea next? What about Iran? Ready to take on THAT beast...because if we're going to stick with the whole "nukes" issue, we'll have to. And I can guarantee a lot more US soldiers will die than did in Iraq.

The 'war' in Iraq was poorly executed once 'Mission Accomplished' was prematurely declared. We went in knowing what the issues would be...and should have been able to get a better handle on things. As the country dissintegrates slowly into a civil war, I feel nothing but pity for the Iraqi people...many of whom I am sure desperately just want to get on with life.

The consequence of our actions in Iraq may be earthshattering. If we don't 'get control' there, I fear it will breed even more hatred for America.

It's not black/white in my eyes...and painting this as a partisan issue is wrong.

[PrincessFiona]

The truth is democrats have not been able to articulate a plan for any policy, foreign or domestic. That's why they are not in power. Like it or not, conservatives have a plan. The cut and run plan of the dems won't keep us safe from terrorism, total and complete victory is the only thing that will keep our country safe.

Tara

I think Kucinich was the only 'cut and run' politician. There are a lot of reasons that the dems aren't in power right now and some of it has to do with their lack of organization as a party, the piss-poor candidates that they've put out and some of the issues recently that have gotten traction in the media.

That...I believe is all about to change.


Cut and run isn't the answer...but we better figure a way to actually 1. define victory in Iraq and 2. accomplish it before the country dissolves in flames!

Complete victory in Iraq the only thing to keep our country safe? eeeh...I don't think so.

kris

Why do democrats only sit back and count bodies? We all hate to see our countrymen perish on the battlefield, but their sacrifice is not in vain. We are in a battle with idiology that will not cease until all Americans/non-radical muslims are dead. Do you honestly think that if we pull out and leave that the terrorists will stop plotting to destroy us? Why don't liberals condemn the 3,000+ deaths of innocent Americans that died from acts of terrorism? The media won't even show the planes hitting the buildings anymore because they want us to forget what we are up against.

I'm not "sitting back and counting bodies". IF this were a war of a just cause, or reasonable target (think Hitler's Germany), I would still be deeply saddened at the loss of each human being. Knowing that we were mislead into this war based on faulty information and knowing that poor planning and execution has cost more lives than necessary is what makes me sick. If this were about "spreading freedom" as someone suggested, we'd be in N.Korea, or any of a number of countries in Africa.

To insinuate that I don't condem and mourn the loss of the 3,000+ people who died on on 9/11 because I don't agree with your opinion is ridiculous.

Did you want to turn the other cheek and wait for them to blow off a nuke in the U.S.? When it happens, we will have millions of Americans dead. Our only hope is to destroy them.

Saddam Hussein was in no position to blow off a nuke in the U.S. Iran or N. Korea are another story - but we're not there, are we? Not only are we not there, but we don't have the manpower to BE there b/c we are stretched so thin.

Bush has deferred to the Generals on the ground for military strategy.

No he has not. He and Rumsfeld denied requests for more troops - the troops they were told were needed to 'do things right'.

Bush Sr. could've taken out Saddam in the Gulf war but that was not the purpose of that war. The exit strategy did not include the removal of Saddam, maybe it should have but everyone is screaming about how we need a clear and defined exit stategy for the Iraq war, we had one in the Gulf but now, many years later nobody likes that stategy.

The exit strategy did not include removal of Saddam b/c Bush Sr.'s administration acknowledged that there was no acceptable exit strategy IF they removed Saddam.

• In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:
  
  "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Too bad his son didn't follow Dad's advice.

[PrincessFiona]

This is so much fun!

kris

[Laker]

Diplomacy is still under way with North Korea. North Korea is China's problem. They helped to create that problem, now they are going to have to deal with it.

As far as Iran, that is going to have to happen internally. They have a very young population that will have to help create change. Iraq and Afghanistan along with other US friends in the region will help to stabilize the region once they are stabilized themselves.

As far as Iraq, Saddam violated numerous UN orders/laws, thus we were entitled to go to war. Saddam should have just complied ala Kadafi in Libya. He complied, gave up his WMDs and we let him rule his country.

Regardless of how we arrived in Iraq, the terrorists are now there. We have a centralized front against the terrorists. It is much easier to kill them when there are in one place.

Remember when Kerry said "I was for the war before I was against the war"?

That is why the dems lost. Sure some mistakes were/are being made. It is called war. Everyone is human. It is much easier to play the Monday morning quarterback with the benefit of hindsight.

Diplomacy is still under way with North Korea. North Korea is China's problem. They helped to create that problem, now they are going to have to deal with it.

I don't see how N. Korea is only China's problem, but okay ....

As far as Iran, that is going to have to happen internally. They have a very young population that will have to help create change. Iraq and Afghanistan along with other US friends in the region will help to stabilize the region once they are stabilized themselves.

The youth of the entire region is part of the problem as a whole. There is no one to lead effectively. As of now the very young population is very much in favor of hating us. How far into the future are you picturing this "stabilized" Iraq and Afghanistan. I thought that part of "freeing" Iraq was to help them create their own government. That government might just not want to be our pawn -- we've done that old game before.

As far as Iraq, Saddam violated numerous UN orders/laws, thus we were entitled to go to war.

The UN (whose laws and orders you're basing this entitlement on) did not agree that we were entitled to go to war. We unilaterally decided - based on incorrect information - information that the UN inspectors said could not be validated. But we knew better ...

Regardless of how we arrived in Iraq, the terrorists are now there. We have a centralized front against the terrorists. It is much easier to kill them when there are in one place.

They aren't all in one place! Sure, some are taking up residence in the hotbed of Iraq b/c we've created a fertile recruiting ground for them. But they're still spread out all over the place - and we can't find the 6' tall one on dialysis -- let alone 'kill 'em all' in one convienent spot.

Remember when Kerry said "I was for the war before I was against the war"? That is why the dems lost.

Yup. Kerry said some stupid things - or didn't explain himself so well sometimes. Even so, we don't want to start to compare his misspeaks to Bush's. For the record, Kerry didn't advocate a "cut and run". He said we were already there, we broke it, and we had to fix it. But the fact that we're there doesn't make it right. Either way - Bush won - so it's HIS job. Talking about what Kerry coulda, shoulda, woulda done is moot.

Yes, mistakes are being made, and yes, it's a lot easier to see things clearly via hindsight. But one of my major beefs of this administration is that it does not acknowledge mistakes; it does not step back from a situation and re-evaluate. Remember during the debates when a woman asked Bush if he thought he'd made any mistakes? If we're all human and we're all fallible, then one would assume that in the BIGGEST JOB IN THE WORLD one might have a regret or two. Not Bush. He's on track, headed down the right path. He accomplished the mission and got to wear the cool jumpsuit on t.v.

These aren't merely mistakes. They are miscaluclations of gargantuan proportions. We were going to be greeted as liberators - remember? The entire original estimate for the Iraq war was $50 to $60 billion (NYTimes 1/2/2003). The current cost is $245 billion and counting (http://www.nationalpriorites.org). I'll leave the body count out this time.

[Laker]

I am upset with Bush and co. for spending $ like drunken sailors. This war is awfully expensive.

When did Bill step back and apologize for doing nothing to terrorists after the 1993 WTC bombimg, 1998 embassy bombings, and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing? I have never heard him apologize for playing with Ms. Lewinsky instead of protecting us. He also sat idle during the Rwanda genocide. Why should Bush do anything to protect the N. Korean women you described? Bill never did. He could have been pursuing Osama and his boys during the 8 years he was in office. He didn't, so now Bush is.

It is expensive and not perfect, but it is better than doing nothing and waiting for another attack in my eyes.

Again with the slandering of sailors! Those guys sure get a bad rap.

Bill never did. He could have been pursuing Osama and his boys during the 8 years he was in office. He didn't, so now Bush is.

We're not going to agree here - ever - but I would just like to point out that by invading Iraq, Bush was not 'pursuing' Osama. Osama and Saddam were not in cahoots, buddies, or even friends. Saddam was too decadent for the al Quaeda way. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and while there were a fair number of people there who would have liked to harm us before this war, they were in no position to effectively do so. Now they're motivated, and the people who know the right people have a ripe breeding ground to find more who will do al Quaeda's dirty work for them.

As far as Bill apologizing - there have been a few "regrets" mentioned. Yes, always the political non-apology-apology .... I don't have specifics, so I'll drop that one.

[Laker]

Again with the slandering of sailors! Those guys sure get a bad rap.

Bill never did. He could have been pursuing Osama and his boys during the 8 years he was in office. He didn't, so now Bush is.

We're not going to agree here - ever - but I would just like to point out that by invading Iraq, Bush was not 'pursuing' Osama. Osama and Saddam were not in cahoots, buddies, or even friends. Saddam was too decadent for the al Quaeda way. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and while there were a fair number of people there who would have liked to harm us before this war, they were in no position to effectively do so. Now they're motivated, and the people who know the right people have a ripe breeding ground to find more who will do al Quaeda's dirty work for them.

As far as Bill apologizing - there have been a few "regrets" mentioned. Yes, always the political non-apology-apology .... I don't have specifics, so I'll drop that one.

Please reread what I posted. Bush most certainly pursued terrorists in Afghanistan, took out the Taliban, and then Saddam chose to go to war.

[PrincessFiona]

and then Saddam chose to go to war.

Woohoo...this is gonna get interesting. I'm pouring myself another cup of coffee!

kris

You know Kris, I'm making a conscious choice to move on. I have drawers that need cleaned out, laundry that needs done, and children that need raised. I cannot allow myself to get sucked in to this black hole.

I'm done with this one ... but everyone knows I think

Laker wrote:
and then Saddam chose to go to war.

Is bunk. 8)

[PrincessFiona]

Hey...don't apologize to me!!! I'm having trouble mustering up a response too...which is why I said I'd get my coffee and figured I'd leave a response up to another soul :^ It seems like we've already gone back and forth on this so many times and no one is really going to change their minds anyway.

I'm actually...cleaning out drawers today, believe it or not . Somehow, every single drawer in my kitchen has become a junk drawer.

kris

[Laker]

I give too.

Tired of :argue: .

Everyone has their mind made up.