I was specifically thinking of Gore and Kerry.

***********************

I love comments like this. Slam Gore and Kerry for the job they MIGHT have done. Bush proved repeatedly over the last 7 years he couldn't do the job. When the other 2 fuck up as bad as he did, then tell me they are worse alternatives. Hell, as much as I dislike McCain even he would be hard pressed to be as bad as Bush.

"Well meaning" or not. Although I have to disagree with that. I think he found any reason to invade Iraq because Saddam tried to have his Daddy assassinated.

<<I love comments like this. Slam Gore and Kerry for the job they MIGHT have done. Bush proved repeatedly over the last 7 years he couldn't do the job. When the other 2 fuck up as bad as he did, then tell me they are worse alternatives. Hell, as much as I dislike McCain even he would be hard pressed to be as bad as Bush.>>

Totally agree.

Bush has been wrong constantly... about the war... the economy...etc... and continues to come to the American people and say the equivalent of..."But THIS time I'll get it right!" WHY are we not taking to the streets, and getting our country back?

<<"Well meaning" or not. Although I have to disagree with that. I think he found any reason to invade Iraq because Saddam tried to have his Daddy assassinated.>>

I WISH it was as simple as a personal vendetta. THAT I could get behind.

Howard

<<A lot of democrats voted to use military force against Iraq. Did Saddam try to assassinate their daddies too? >>

First... I think there is very little difference Dems from Republicans these days...they are ALL simply politicans who are looking to get elected. Secondly, the extremes of BOTH parties get to define the dialogue. In this case I am talking the far right, but the far left does it as well. "If you do not support the war... support this President... then you HATE America... hate the troops... and support the terrorists." Are we really that stupid? Maybe we are.

Howard

"A lot of democrats voted to use military force against Iraq."

After Bush supplied them with faulty intelligence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction to use against us.

BT

Good point!  You know which democrat voted for the war, and much akin to Lady Macbeth, has the blood all over her hands?

And which democrat candidate was not in favor of the war?

Frankly, we toss around ideas like somehow congress was mis-lead or whatever, and it was popular at the time, but really?  There were those of us, even back then, who knew this was a wrong and bad move.  Again - see the events that set off the Plame scandal.  The fact that we've changed justifications for going so many times should be proof enough that it's not something we need to be spilling our soliders blood over. 

And before this becomes a farce about "the terrorists" - the people we're fighting in Iraq are not an organized military - they're terrorists.  They're attacking us because we're right there.  The idea that we fight them there so we don't fight them here is silly - we're not even their main target - Israel is.  OBL was part of a specific group that did target us, because we built a military base on muslim holy land.  I don't think that's a rational response to that, however, I also understand that if you rattle the cage and poke the tiger... well... 

We have organizations that should be keeping America safe from terrorists - and a lot of time, they do.  Terrorism existed before 9/11.  And in fact, as Howard notes - terrorism isn't a people or a nation - it's a crime.  That's like saying we're going to war with murder.  We're going to war with hate.  (remember how successful the "war on drugs" was?  At least our soldiers didn't have to die and become crippled in that one...)

Of course I believe that the various agencies in our government should be working to keep us safe, but I strongly believe that the way we've gone about it is only making things worse.

Well.  No, Bush did lay some eggs.  Again, refer back to the Plame scandal.  We knew, for a fact, that the urainium cake incident was based on an Italian forged document.  We knew that.  And Bush used it anyway, despite the CIA warning him not to.  It was a lie. 

Now, maybe he felt he needed that lie because he thought the rest of it was true - that much I don't know - can't see in Bush's head.

However, when you consider that much of Bush's cabinet in his first term were all official signed members of PNAC, one of who's stated goals was to invade Iraq, well... you start to see how and why the truth was played with so casually...