Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[JoeBlo]

A lot of people don't understand this because Bush never really defended himself from the vicious attacks by democrats on his character and such.

>From the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website.

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/jurisdiction.html

Democrats controlled that committee in 2001 & 2002 whose job is to make sure intelligence is accurate and such for the executive and legislative branches. and here's what they(D) said before 'Bush tricked them' in 2003. It's amazing how reality doesn't match the hyperbole about Bush lying and such. I'm only listing here just a few quote of what the members of the party (D) who controlled that committee in 2001-2002 said, obviously Republicans couldn't have 'tricked' them when they ran the show.

link- http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Did you know Bush never even said Saddam was an imminent threat, but Ranking committee member Jay Rockefellar did and so did his colleague John Edwards.

I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat. -John Edwards

Now here's what Teddy said:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

But then later recanted, 2004 I think.

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas." -Ted Kennedy

Wrong Teddy! If anything this war was made up in the Senate Intelligence committee democrats controlled in 2001 and 2002.

And How did Bush 'fool' the Clinton administration before he ever came to office?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

The kiddies sure are gullable to hyperbole and the democrats know it. Ignorance really is bliss, apparently. Taking out Saddam was trhe right thing to do in a post 9-11 world and the uncertainty of his WMD. The only reason we can say with such certainty Saddam had no WMD is because he was finally removed from power and inspections went unhampered.

Bush screwed up the occupation and McCain was railing against the way Bush and Rumsfeld were executing it almost from the minute the occupation began. And to his own detriment McCain stood up to his own party and Bush about Rummy.

[DJEagles]

I have many relatives who are Canadian, so I know what you're thinking. But, I must say that you are wrong that the last 8 years were lousy. Here's the facts:

1. We have not had a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11; meanwhile, other countries like Spain, UK, etc, suffer from attacks. Our intelligence, however, has foiled a number of terrorist attempts over the past 8 years.

2. Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq forced Alquaeda to split its forces between the two countries, and we captured a number of top terrorist leaders in Iraq, thereby severely crippling the terrorist movement within the country. Because of this success in Iraq, Alquaeda has been forced to change strategy and abandon Iraq to pursue its interests in Afghanistan. That is why we are seeing increased violence in Afghanistan. It's not because Alquaeda all of sudden got more troops. It's because they've had to regroup and change strategy. This is not Rush-talk, it's my own opinion.

3. We had 3 of the best economic years in our nation's history from 2004-2006.

4. Our relations with Russia have improved as President Bush has sought friendly terms with President Putin. We have also strengthened our ties with Great Britain. This is crucial to maintaining stability around the world. Imagine if the US did not have the relationship with Russia, and we just came out the blue to tell them to get out of Georgia. We would have been much less respected and probably hated.

You can argue these points if you want, but I strongly believe that while he has been far from perfect, Bush has done great things for this country.

A lot of good those 3 great economic years are doing for you now!

Before 9/11, when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil by foreign terrorists: 1993 was it not?

Putin is slowing showing his cards, and he is not a fan of the West. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

Bush will be looked at years from now, as one of the worst Presidents your country has ever had.

[SeveredSoulX]

Bush can't be any worse than what Johnson did to us in Vietnam, or what Nixon continued in Vietnam, sure no president is perfect, but all they focus is on the negatives, sure Bush did some good, but he also failed at many aspects, and neither candidate will overcome his screwups - Putin is just letting the US into his old secrets and will never show his new ones - those Russians are always up to no good and Bush will be a normal president, but one who failed alot, but did not totally screw this nation over - I support neither McCain nor Obama, but I believe the right person will some how end up making the US a better place - whether an old, heart-attack ridden man runs it with a diddy old housewife, or a black man with an old, stern man

[piratesmvp04]

A lot of good those 3 great economic years are doing for you now!

Before 9/11, when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil by foreign terrorists: 1993 was it not?

Putin is slowing showing his cards, and he is not a fan of the West. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

Bush will be looked at years from now, as one of the worst Presidents your country has ever had.

Every economy has its ups and downs. We had a large up, and now the down is coming. As long as we manage this downturn properly, we'll be okay. That's just what happens when you live in one of the world's largest nations which the world's largest economy.

The last terrorist attack was 1993, but Osama Bin Laden also attacked US embassies in 1998. Our presence in the Middle East has forced Bin Laden to set his priorities on a more immediate threat, which is on his own turf. And, don't forget that there were terrorist attempts during the few years following 9/11 which were foiled by the US Intelligence. So, it's not like the terrorists only attack every 8 years.

People are going to look back on President Bush in the future after the Iraq war is over and Alquaeda is subdued, and they will say that he was right.

[DJEagles]

Every economy has its ups and downs. We had a large up, and now the down is coming. As long as we manage this downturn properly, we'll be okay. That's just what happens when you live in one of the world's largest nations which the world's largest economy.

The last terrorist attack was 1993, but Osama Bin Laden also attacked US embassies in 1998. Our presence in the Middle East has forced Bin Laden to set his priorities on a more immediate threat, which is on his own turf. And, don't forget that there were terrorist attempts during the few years following 9/11 which were foiled by the US Intelligence. So, it's not like the terrorists only attack every 8 years.

People are going to look back on President Bush in the future after the Iraq war is over and Alquaeda is subdued, and they will say that he was right.

I don't see this happening.

I agree with you that the economy has its peaks and valleys, but the U.S. economy is teetering towards near catastrophic levels. It's a mess, and that is partly because the Bush administration has based the last 8 years on the "War On Terrorism", all the while neglecting the problems that have arisen on the home front.

It's a shame that so many lower class people continue to suffer in the U.S., while billions of dollars are being pumped into a war that WAS NOT NEEDED. Iraq was not a direct threat to the United States, but because of Bush Propoganda, millions of people believed that Saddam Hussein was going to personally bomb their homes.

I have no party affiliation obviously, being Canadian, but I am also 33 years old, and have seen the mess that the Bush government has made, as it indirectly affects what goes here in Canada, and around the world.

[DJEagles]

Every economy has its ups and downs. We had a large up, and now the down is coming. As long as we manage this downturn properly, we'll be okay. That's just what happens when you live in one of the world's largest nations which the world's largest economy.

The last terrorist attack was 1993, but Osama Bin Laden also attacked US embassies in 1998. Our presence in the Middle East has forced Bin Laden to set his priorities on a more immediate threat, which is on his own turf. And, don't forget that there were terrorist attempts during the few years following 9/11 which were foiled by the US Intelligence. So, it's not like the terrorists only attack every 8 years.

People are going to look back on President Bush in the future after the Iraq war is over and Alquaeda is subdued, and they will say that he was right.

I am not saying that terrorists attack every 8 years, I am saying that I believe that we are not safe from another attack, just that there hasn't been another yet. People are lulled into a fall sense of security, which really can work against a country. If they want to attack on american soil again, they will find a way to do it.

[el_jefe061]

And we all know that MOST of Congress wanted to go to Iraq as well. In 2002, the House approved to go to Iraq by a vote of 296-133. But the Senate approved the bill by a whopping 77-23. So, 77% of Congress voted for the war. And don't tell me that it's because of a Republican majority. In fact, the Democrats had a slight majority in the Senate at the time of the vote (50 seats-(Dem.) 49 seats-(Rep.) 1 seat (Independant)). So, that means that a great deal of Democrats had to vote for this bill in order for it to pass. A lone 100% Republican support would not have been enough.

My point in saying this is that I believe we shouldn't beat up on people for supporting the Iraq war initially. If that were the case, I guess Hillary Clinton should be out of the political picture because she strongly supported the war from the start. The basis of war was the result of bad evidence, and any discussion of how we shouldn't have gone is aftertalk. All government members did what they should have done with the available evidence.

That's not the point. You can't support wars, joke about going into Iran, talking about destroying North Korea, and call THE OTHER GUY a war monger. It just doesn't work that way.

1. We have not had a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11; meanwhile, other countries like Spain, UK, etc, suffer from attacks. Our intelligence, however, has foiled a number of terrorist attempts over the past 8 years.

2. Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq forced Alquaeda to split its forces between the two countries, and we captured a number of top terrorist leaders in Iraq, thereby severely crippling the terrorist movement within the country. Because of this success in Iraq, Alquaeda has been forced to change strategy and abandon Iraq to pursue its interests in Afghanistan. That is why we are seeing increased violence in Afghanistan. It's not because Alquaeda all of sudden got more troops. It's because they've had to regroup and change strategy. This is not Rush-talk, it's my own opinion.

3. We had 3 of the best economic years in our nation's history from 2004-2006.

4. Our relations with Russia have improved as President Bush has sought friendly terms with President Putin. We have also strengthened our ties with Great Britain. This is crucial to maintaining stability around the world. Imagine if the US did not have the relationship with Russia, and we just came out the blue to tell them to get out of Georgia. We would have been much less respected and probably hated.

The Bush Administration was repeatedly warned about a terrorist attack on American soil before September 11th. They ignored the warnings, and here we are today. The fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack in the last 7 years says very little. We went eight years between both attacks on the World Trade Center.

As for weakening Al Qaeda, that just isn't the case. Al Qaeda is as strong as ever. Since we neglected to finish the job in Afghanistan, the Taliban has regained strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They're not "split", they've just grown into Iraq, a place where they weren't while Saddam Hussein was in power.

2004-2006 weren't three of the greatest years in our American economy's history. They were periods of growth for corporations from a low recession. The housing bubble that recently burst was what happened in 2004-2006, and look where we are now.

If you believe that President Bush has improved relations with the Russians, he has ruined relations with everyone else. He's killed our international standing with the rest of the world, while Putin probably doesn't care much for Bush anyway.

No more one party control in DC and no more Harvard or Yale elites in the WH would be real change right there.

McCain08!

Last time I checked, John McCain finished in the bottom five of his class at WestPoint, and only got in because he came from a family of admirals. He should never have even been in the military. Also, last time I checked, George W. Bush was a Yale grad. As for one party control, didn't we experience that in Washington from 2000-2006? Or am I mistaken.

Bush screwed up the occupation and McCain was railing against the way Bush and Rumsfeld were executing it almost from the minute the occupation began. And to his own detriment McCain stood up to his own party and Bush about Rummy.

I'll forgive you for being wrong about McCain "railing" on the administration from the get-go; McCain stated from the beginning that it would be swift and easy to accomplish. I will, agree (if this is what you're saying), that the execution of the war was the problem, not the war itself.

The first Gulf War was paid for by three Arab countries for 74% of the cost. We had a coalition of over 500,000 troops, compared to around 150,000 this time, and the coalition was a REAL coalition. Saddam Hussein was a greater threat to surrounding countries than to America, much like Iran is today, so why couldn't they foot the bill? We were doing a huge favor for countries like Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and most importantly, Israel. They couldn't take any of their oil riches and put it toward the war? As for the strategic side, George W. Bush frequently ignored his Generals, and now we're in this quagmire of a war.

I take it JoeBlo, that you're going to ignore me again, and just continue to spew out BS, for the most part? Just like Sarah Palin, ignore the tough questions and continue with talking points.

[Kccitystar]

Obama can have all the hope he wants, but I think when he gets in, the burden will be too great.

I came across this little gem of information when I was researching our current state of affairs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

I'm not sure how I missed this originally, but if 2.3 trillion can somehow go unaccounted for, there's no telling what kind of corruption our government is responsible for. Nothing can be ruled out. This is a whorehouse nation and we're going to get what's coming to us. As much as I hate the scumbags at the top, we the people are lazy, fat and stupid, and we are just as guilty. The bottom has fallen out and the house of cards is crashing down. Over the past 5 years, we've turned into a joke of country that doesn't produce anything and borrows money from China to fight a frigging joke of a war.

*sigh* Bush and Bill Clinton and other scheming pieces of crap in DC and Wall Street have effectively taken the most powerful nation on Earth and turned it to garbage. I'm sure that inspires so much confidence in other democratic free market countries. America is a moocher. A big ******* moocher, plain and simple. We are a joke, and our credibility, if we ever even had it, is gone for a very long time.

Bin Laden achieved his goal from the outset. Why attack the World Trade Center of all buildings? It was symbolism of the collapse of the US as an economic superpower.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/18/o...nomic-collapse/

In November 2004, CNN reported that Bin Laden released a video monologue to Al-Jazeera where the terror-savvy, extreme fundamentalist announced plans to continue a "policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" using similar tactics to those used when fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80s, "guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

Bin Laden bragged at the time that al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations."

"And it all shows that the real loser is you," Bin Laden said. "It is the American people and their economy."

Bin Laden said of President Bush that "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America."

And from CNN in 2004: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

It's pretty amazing when you think about what's happened...it's all worked out as Bin Laden wanted.

[SeveredSoulX]

If I was running a country, I'd want Bin Laden running my Treasury...

[Pirate]

Obama can have all the hope he wants, but I think when he gets in, the burden will be too great.

I came across this little gem of information when I was researching our current state of affairs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

I'm not sure how I missed this originally, but if 2.3 trillion can somehow go unaccounted for, there's no telling what kind of corruption our government is responsible for. Nothing can be ruled out. This is a whorehouse nation and we're going to get what's coming to us. As much as I hate the scumbags at the top, we the people are lazy, fat and stupid, and we are just as guilty. The bottom has fallen out and the house of cards is crashing down. Over the past 5 years, we've turned into a joke of country that doesn't produce anything and borrows money from China to fight a frigging joke of a war.

*sigh* Bush and Bill Clinton and other scheming pieces of crap in DC and Wall Street have effectively taken the most powerful nation on Earth and turned it to garbage. I'm sure that inspires so much confidence in other democratic free market countries. America is a moocher. A big **** moocher, plain and simple. We are a joke, and our credibility, if we ever even had it, is gone for a very long time.

Bin Laden achieved his goal from the outset. Why attack the World Trade Center of all buildings? It was symbolism of the collapse of the US as an economic superpower.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/18/o...nomic-collapse/

And from CNN in 2004: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

It's pretty amazing when you think about what's happened...it's all worked out as Bin Laden wanted.

I had this discussion with my wife on the anniversary of the war.

It's scary.

Also to throw this nugget out a week late... What was the Republican reaction to Palin saying Obama pals around with terrorists?

I mean McCain's buddies (Bush, Cheany, etc.) are terrorizing Iraq and Afghanistan and even worse the families of those here who have to watch as their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, friends get sent off to die for a war based on lies.

Is Palin really that stupid or are her handlers idiots? Or both?

[DJEagles]

Obama can have all the hope he wants, but I think when he gets in, the burden will be too great.

I came across this little gem of information when I was researching our current state of affairs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

I'm not sure how I missed this originally, but if 2.3 trillion can somehow go unaccounted for, there's no telling what kind of corruption our government is responsible for. Nothing can be ruled out. This is a whorehouse nation and we're going to get what's coming to us. As much as I hate the scumbags at the top, we the people are lazy, fat and stupid, and we are just as guilty. The bottom has fallen out and the house of cards is crashing down. Over the past 5 years, we've turned into a joke of country that doesn't produce anything and borrows money from China to fight a frigging joke of a war.

*sigh* Bush and Bill Clinton and other scheming pieces of crap in DC and Wall Street have effectively taken the most powerful nation on Earth and turned it to garbage. I'm sure that inspires so much confidence in other democratic free market countries. America is a moocher. A big **** moocher, plain and simple. We are a joke, and our credibility, if we ever even had it, is gone for a very long time.

Bin Laden achieved his goal from the outset. Why attack the World Trade Center of all buildings? It was symbolism of the collapse of the US as an economic superpower.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/18/o...nomic-collapse/

And from CNN in 2004: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

It's pretty amazing when you think about what's happened...it's all worked out as Bin Laden wanted.

BINGO!

His plan seems to be working. Bush and Co. have bled the country to the point of economic collapse. Anyone who doesn't see this, is wearing one large set of blinders.

[Kccitystar]

Whatever they were attempting with 9/11, it was the starting point that lead to our current situation. We got locked into multiple wars, the world view of America has been destroyed, the country has lost any faith it had in its government, our civil liberties are all but gone along with our system of checks and balances, and our economy is in a freefall. A large number of people are predicting this as the "end of the American empire".

I don't think this was what they planned, but they can't be anything but happy at the long-term results of their actions.

They didn't take a win, the Bush administration gave it to them.

[meteamo]

Whatever they were attempting with 9/11, it was the starting point that lead to our current situation. We got locked into multiple wars, the world view of America has been destroyed, the country has lost any faith it had in its government, our civil liberties are all but gone along with our system of checks and balances, and our economy is in a freefall. A large number of people are predicting this as the "end of the American empire".

History is doomed to repeat itself sometimes, especially if we don't learn from it. This sounds like one of the most successful empires history has known ... the Roman Empire. They spread themselves too thin and they were fighting too many wars at the same time ... not being able to handle it all. Before worrying about how the state of affairs are in another country, the state of affairs at home should be taken care of first.

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

What's going on with the investigation involving Palin? How serious is it and what's the worst case scenario for her? Would it affect the election?

And why does O'Reilly not like Palin?

[piratesmvp04]

I don't see this happening.

I agree with you that the economy has its peaks and valleys, but the U.S. economy is teetering towards near catastrophic levels. It's a mess, and that is partly because the Bush administration has based the last 8 years on the "War On Terrorism", all the while neglecting the problems that have arisen on the home front.

It's a shame that so many lower class people continue to suffer in the U.S., while billions of dollars are being pumped into a war that WAS NOT NEEDED. Iraq was not a direct threat to the United States, but because of Bush Propoganda, millions of people believed that Saddam Hussein was going to personally bomb their homes.

I have no party affiliation obviously, being Canadian, but I am also 33 years old, and have seen the mess that the Bush government has made, as it indirectly affects what goes here in Canada, and around the world.

Your statements are the same things said by people in this country who cannot realize how important the War on Terror is. Many people in the US have the mindset that, "If I'm not hurting, I don't care." That stinky attitude is what causes them to want or vote for failed policies. This is why they can't see why a bailout is important. (BTW, I thought Obama gave an excellent explanation for why the bailout is important). People need to realize that we are keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East. We are giving them more important matters to be concerned about instead of trying to strike the US.

And about going to Iraq, as I said, all this talk about how we shouldn't have gone is simply aftertalk. It's not solely Bush's or any other politician's fault. We had bad evidence that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, and we responded to the threat. What would you rather have happen? Have us sit around and so nothing but talk like Britsh Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler? Or have us respond to threats and stop any potential problems like we did with Iraq?

[Kccitystar]

As it is, we've spent over $600? $680 billion? in Iraq. What do we have to show for it? Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No. But during that time, North Korea actually detonated a nuclear device and Iran is marching forward.

We basically dropped the ball big time with the war in Iraq. Shinseki was laughed out of the staff meetings for suggesting that this would be anything but easy. It has been a colossal failure on all levels. In the context of the current economic crisis, it has constricted how we have been able to react. There's news floating around about Iceland seeking a loan from Russia. We could be providing aid and strengthening our diplomatic standing around the world if we had more budgetary flexibility.

Bush's administration was warned that there was no threat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq; that in fact an invasion would instead spawn terrorists there. But just like Bush was already illegally spying on Americans before 9/11, he also had plans to get into Iraq and to give tax cuts (and deregulate etc) before the terrorist attack. Bush isn't really interested in national security as such. He cares about getting control of oil and domination over the globe by force, damn whatever blowbacks might occur. I think the Bush administration would have found a reason to go into Iraq with or without 9/11. There was already some saber rattling before hand, although on a lower level, and 9/11 just gave us the excuse to go in at a time when the nation was calling for blood and brimming with nationalism.

Bush doesn't care about public opinion. He only uses it when it is a political opportunity to do so. His administration has been patently dismissive towards the population of the America, Iraq and Afghanistan when the polls started to show that they want USA troops to stop occupying and come home.

[piratesmvp04]

As it is, we've spent over $600? $680 billion? in Iraq. What do we have to show for it? Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No. But during that time, North Korea actually detonated a nuclear device and Iran is marching forward.

We basically dropped the ball big time with the war in Iraq. Shinseki was laughed out of the staff meetings for suggesting that this would be anything but easy. It has been a colossal failure on all levels. In the context of the current economic crisis, it has constricted how we have been able to react. There's news floating around about Iceland seeking a loan from Russia. We could be providing aid and strengthening our diplomatic standing around the world if we had more budgetary flexibility.

Bush's administration was warned that there was no threat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq; that in fact an invasion would instead spawn terrorists there. But just like Bush was already illegally spying on Americans before 9/11, he also had plans to get into Iraq and to give tax cuts (and deregulate etc) before the terrorist attack. Bush isn't really interested in national security as such. He cares about getting control of oil and domination over the globe by force, **** whatever blowbacks might occur. I think the Bush administration would have found a reason to go into Iraq with or without 9/11. There was already some saber rattling before hand, although on a lower level, and 9/11 just gave us the excuse to go in at a time when the nation was calling for blood and brimming with nationalism.

Bush doesn't care about public opinion. He only uses it when it is apolitical opportunity to do so. His administration has been patently dismissive towards the population of the America, Iraq and Afghanistan when the polls started to show that they want USA troops to stop occupying and come home.

I guess you don't consider the capture of numerous Alquaeda leaders, the weakening of their organization, the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government, and the decreased violence (which is now opening the door for US oil companies to invest there and start building Iraq's economy and lower our gas prices) a success. If that's not success, I don't know what you think is. But I do know this. In 2002, most of America wanted us to go into Iraq, and now most don't want us there. Now, people want us to attack Pakistan or Iran if they prove dangerous. And, when that war takes longer than expected, America will turn against that war as well. See how America is full of flip-floppers?

[Kayxero]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...1252x1200694500

As if I am surprised at all by this =/

[AddisonClark]

I guess you don't consider the capture of numerous Alquaeda leaders, the weakening of their organization, the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government, and the decreased violence (which is now opening the door for US oil companies to invest there and start building Iraq's economy and lower our gas prices) a success. If that's not success, I don't know what you think is. But I do know this. In 2002, most of America wanted us to go into Iraq, and now most don't want us there. Now, people want us to attack Pakistan or Iran if they prove dangerous. And, when that war takes longer than expected, America will turn against that war as well. See how America is full of flip-floppers?

Americans aren't "flip-floppers" -- quit quoting buzz words from Republican campaigns of the past.

The American public gave the government a chance. We were promised a quick, easy war, and at a time of heightened and radical patriotism, we obliged and supported the war. But as the war dragged on and it became more and more obvious the war was misguided, based on lies, and had no apparent end in sight, we as a public turned on the war because we realized our mistake and wanted to move forward with our lives... something the administration still stubbornly refuses to do.

It's not called "flip-flopping", it's called admitting when you're wrong and using common sense.

[piratesmvp04]

Americans aren't "flip-floppers" -- quit quoting buzz words from Republican campaigns of the past.

The American public gave the government a chance. We were promised a quick, easy war, and at a time of heightened and radical patriotism, we obliged and supported the war. But as the war dragged on and it became more and more obvious the war was misguided, based on lies, and had no apparent end in sight, we as a public turned on the war because we realized our mistake and wanted to move forward with our lives... something the administration still stubbornly refuses to do.

It's not called "flip-flopping", it's called admitting when you're wrong and using common sense.

Nobody wants to be at war right now. But, we have to finish the job we started, or else Iraq will become very unstable, and we will end up going back in the future when trouble returns. The administration knows that America must not leave before the job is done. They have presented their reasons for why we shouldn't leave and the trouble that will happen to Iraq if we do. But the funny thing is that the left, which wants to leave the war before it's over, doesn't ever give their reason for why Iraq won't suffer harm if we leave now. Why is that? Hmmm...

[piratesmvp04]

And why does O'Reilly not like Palin?

Bill O'Reilly is the most moderate conservative talk-show host in America. He's not really anti-Obama, so you can't use him to argue why Palin's no good. Show me if Limbaugh or Hannity don't like her, and then I'll raise an ear.

[Kayxero]

http://money.cnn.com/data/us_markets/

So the bailout fixed nothing, and this is why deregulation is garbage and why we need change.

And I hate having to hear my best friend complain over losing 2 grand in his 401 k in the past two weeks.

At least hes voting for someone who will help fix things next month.

[meteamo]

I'm tired of hearing about people talking about the stock market and that the rescue / bailout plan (whichever you prefer to call it) will all of a sudden miraculously jump start the stock market and all the respective stocks. I hear it all the time at work. What this plan did was to prevent a bigger collapse acting. The plan perhaps should have been different and had different language in it but something had to be done. If you think this is bad, just imagine how much worse it would be if nothing was done. Instead of having a 2-3 year downturn, we'll only have 3-6 months. Three months in my opinion is a lot better than 2 years. Just throwing these idiots in jail wouldn't have helped any suffering.

The question is whether or not the government should have stepped in. If the government didn't step in, the same people complaining now might be complaining how come the government didn't do anything when this mess began. It's a lose - lose situation.

This whole thing got going with the collapse of all the banks. The banks when seized by the government should have been auctioned instead of sold for a lot less than what they were worth. For example, a bank that was seized by the government was sold to another bank for 2 Billion dollars. The building alone was worth a little less than that and they should have gone for at least 5 Billion dollars. Another bank recently wanted to pay 11 Billion dollars for them. So for all intensive purposes, the government short changed the American Public. And for any more transactions, they should all go to auction but unfortunately the government panicked and they wanted any bank to buy the failed bank. I think the banks involved was Wachovia.

Yes, we need a change like was said above but don't expect the bailout / rescue plan to immediately fix everything. However, in order to fix a huge problem from even becoming bigger, we have to stop or more appropriately lessen the bleeding until it eventually comes to a stop. The talk of the day at work was about their retirement plans and how some had their money in funds and stocks. They were talking about how they hopefully won't lose everything. That sucks. I feel sorry for all the guys at work that's close to retirement. They may need to postpone it for a little while.

Raptor would know more than me though. Always follow the money.

[el_jefe061]

And about going to Iraq, as I said, all this talk about how we shouldn't have gone is simply aftertalk. It's not solely Bush's or any other politician's fault. We had bad evidence that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, and we responded to the threat. What would you rather have happen? Have us sit around and so nothing but talk like Britsh Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler? Or have us respond to threats and stop any potential problems like we did with Iraq?

Not true. Going into Iraq was a war based not only on faulty intelligence, but lies from the Bush Administration. Wanting to respond to the threat was a goal of the Bush administration, not the American people. There was no threat. President Bush made it a goal of the American people by lying and using known faulty intelligence. Are we also forgetting that it wasn't a universal agreement that there was a threat? Even with Bush's "intelligence" there was very little hard evidence at the time. It essentially because a judgment call. If there actually was a threat, which there wasn't, then sure, we could go in. There wasn't a threat.

Also, if there is a legitimate threat, like say, North Korea, then why aren't we there? What does that say about Iraq and WMDs?

In short, I disagree that waiting would have caused something comparable to the Holocaust (Saddam Hussein is no Adolf Hitler, and bears no real threat to the freedom of the Western World, like Hitler did), which is what I think you're saying, but I don't disagree that we can't leave Iraq open for countries that ACTUALLY are threats. Like I've said before, it wasn't the war that was the problem; it was the execution.

Bill O'Reilly is the most moderate conservative talk-show host in America. He's not really anti-Obama, so you can't use him to argue why Palin's no good. Show me if Limbaugh or Hannity don't like her, and then I'll raise an ear.

That's like being the smartest kid in the Special Olympics. Bill O'Reilly is conservative talk show scum, a racist and bigot, who has no place on American television. The same goes for Limbaugh and Hannity as well.

Nobody wants to be at war right now. But, we have to finish the job we started, or else Iraq will become very unstable, and we will end up going back in the future when trouble returns. The administration knows that America must not leave before the job is done. They have presented their reasons for why we shouldn't leave and the trouble that will happen to Iraq if we do. But the funny thing is that the left, which wants to leave the war before it's over, doesn't ever give their reason for why Iraq won't suffer harm if we leave now. Why is that? Hmmm...

What's more important: The well being of Iraq, or the well being of America? Because I hear conservatives railing on the left about "the well being of Iraq" without considering what the cost of this war is doing to people at home. The billions of dollars spent in Iraq yearly could help to rescue the American economy at home.

You talk about Iraq suffering now, but haven't you learned anything from Vietnam? It would have gone on endlessly if we had held out hope for a "victory". As someone whose father was drafted during the Vietnam era, I don't believe we should stay in Iraq if it's just going to cost more lives and money for nothing. You can't just walk into a region that has been a powder keg for thousands of years and expect Democracy; it's foolish and naive.

It comes down to who matters more, Americans or Iraqis. I disagree that the success of Iraq is directly linked to the success of America. Iraq has had surpluses in their budget, and what have we seen from that? A stable Iraq doesn't solve our economy, improve our infrastructure, or fix education. The only benefit we see from a stable Iraq is that fact that we would know it wouldn't be controlled by a nut like they have in Iran. If we install a stable government and let them run their own country, they can do it themselves.

So tell me, what's more important, Iraq or America?

As for the comment "we'll have to go back in a couple of years", we have to go back to Afghanistan in greater numbers NOW. Afghanistan is far more important to world safety and the "war" on terror than Iraq is. Al Qaeda is at its strongest in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

[catzrthecoolest]

I learned the hard way that it is bad to make jokes about Special Olympics here

[AstroEric]

Have us sit around and do nothing but talk like Britsh Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler? Or have us respond to threats and stop any potential problems like we did with Iraq?

...Nothing but talk? Are you this guy?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

Guess whose posts I'll be ignoring from here on out?

--Eric

P.S. I've helped my wife with her classes at the Special Olympics and let me tell you...there are folks competing there that are smarter than some of the "regular" folks I've seen posting here....