Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[cardaway]

You and your DIS friends are busier attacking our President than you are the enemy.

In many ways the administration has been the enemy.

 

[cardaway]

The "insurgency" are terrorists and in Iraq, the only one that HAD power was Saddam and those whom he chose to bestow it on.

You really need that wake up call.

 

[DawnCt1]

And we have left Iraq wide open for Iran (who does possess nuclear capabilities)
to take over. I might also suggest that North Korea was also a much bigger threat
and has a far more evil dictator.

Had we gone into Afghanistan with the strength we went into Iraq, I believe we would
have captured Osama Bin Laden; the rest of the world would have been supportive.

By the way, I was wondering who was still in the that 30 something percent.
Just out of curiousity: are you in the oil or pharmaceutical business or do you
work for Haliburton?

With the majority of Al Queda's leadership killed or captured, OBL is a castrated figurehead who will either be captured or be dead. The operative word is North Korea "already" had nukes, Iraq didn't. Also if you can think strategically for a minute, you would clearly see the benefit of a democracy in the middle east neighboring Iran. BTW, we are neither in oil or pharmaceuticals, nor Haliburton. DH is an Army Reserve Colonel proudly serving in Iraq at this time as a physician. He takes superb care of the soldiers and the detainees.

 

[Tumbleweed]

With the majority of Al Queda's leadership killed or captured, OBL is a castrated figurehead who will either be captured or be dead. The operative word is North Korea "already" had nukes, Iraq didn't. Also if you can think strategically for a minute, you would clearly see the benefit of a democracy in the middle east neighboring Iran. BTW, we are neither in oil or pharmaceuticals, nor Haliburton. DH is an Army Reserve Colonel proudly serving in Iraq at this time as a physician. He takes superb care of the soldiers and the detainees.

You know, the one thing you need to understand and know is that those
of those that dont' support this war nor President Bush do absolutely
support our troups.

 

[Mugg Mann]

And we have left Iraq wide open for Iran (who does possess nuclear capabilities)
to take over. I might also suggest that North Korea was also a much bigger threat
and has a far more evil dictator.

Had we gone into Afghanistan with the strength we went into Iraq, I believe we would
have captured Osama Bin Laden; the rest of the world would have been supportive.

By the way, I was wondering who was still in the that 30 something percent.
Just out of curiousity: are you in the oil or pharmaceutical business or do you
work for Haliburton?

Don't forget the hard core religious right...I wouldn't be surprised if they actually constituted most of that 30%.

 

[DawnCt1]

You know, the one thing you need to understand and know is that those
of those that dont' support this war nor President Bush do absolutely
support our troups.

Yeah right. DH has felt quite strongly about that little cliche, as do many of the troops. "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops". It makes sense of many levels because first and foremost, you do not want the mission to succeed.

 

[punkin]

Yeah right. DH has felt quite strongly about that little cliche, as do many of the troops. "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops". It makes sense of many levels because first and foremost, you do not want the mission to succeed.

You are so wrong. First you have to define the "mission" I personally would love to have Iraq be a democratic country, but I think invading them and killing Iraqis is not the way to achieve that "mission"

Is our mission there to find wmds? Well that's already failed so let's bring the troops back; is it to toppple Sadam? Well, we've done that so let's bring the troops back. What exactly is the "mission" we do not want to succeed? Getting our troops killed for no apparent reason whatsoever? Yeah, I'm against that.

 

[toto2]

This thread is fascinating !

I have just one thought: When people who support Mr Bush say that , he can go above the law regardin wiretaping , because the cause is soooo important and the dangers soooo great , but , no Mr Bush could not go above the law in New Orleans and take controle, It would be taking over Louisiana sovreingnty. Why is it all right for the president to brake the law in on instance and not in the other. In one instence , no immediate danger , but possible succes, in the other, terrible immediate danger and possible succes also ! In the case where supporter of bush action are few ( illegal wiretaping) you cannot blame the other team , there is no one else to blame for the taping , so you can only support the president , on the other one ( where undred died ), you can blame someone else ,so the supporter do blame the others.

I hope I am clear , again , sometimes my english.....

 

[DawnCt1]

You are so wrong. First you have to define the "mission" I personally would love to have Iraq be a democratic country, but I think invading them and killing Iraqis is not the way to achieve that "mission"

Is our mission there to find wmds? Well that's already failed so let's bring the troops back; is it to toppple Sadam? Well, we've done that so let's bring the troops back. What exactly is the "mission" we do not want to succeed? Getting our troops killed for no apparent reason whatsoever? Yeah, I'm against that.

The mission was to disarm Saddam and remove him from power. A new government has to be in place and able to defend itself from the terrorists who want it to fail. If you are calling for a premature American pull out, you are opting for failure. "Killing Iraqis" is a quaint phrase but it is more accurate to say that we are working side by side with Iraqis who are killing the terrorists.

 

[DawnCt1]

This thread is fascinating !

I have just one thought: When people who support Mr Bush say that , he can go above the law regardin wiretaping , because the cause is soooo important and the dangers soooo great , but , no Mr Bush could not go above the law in New Orleans and take controle, It would be taking over Louisiana sovreingnty. Why is it all right for the president to brake the law in on instance and not in the other. In one instence , no immediate danger , but possible succes, in the other, terrible immediate danger and possible succes also ! In the case where supporter of bush action are few ( illegal wiretaping) you cannot blame the other team , there is no one else to blame for the taping , so you can only support the president , on the other one ( where undred died ), you can blame someone else ,so the supporter do blame the others.

I hope I am clear , again , sometimes my english.....

There is no discussion as long as you persist in your belief that the wiretapping was illegal. It is not. Even the democrats in Congress will not stand up and demand that it stop. They know that it is an essential cornerstone of protecting the United States. They, like the rest of the left just want to harp on it. To compare LEGAL survailance of known terrorists calling their "friends" in the United States to the president NOT taking over New Orleans is like comparing apples to aardvarks.

 

[Free4Life11]

Ok it's a little late, but since the title is "how low can he go," here ya go:

http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis/oldies/limbo_rock.mid

 

[cardaway]

The mission was to disarm Saddam and remove him from power. A new government has to be in place and able to defend itself from the terrorists who want it to fail. If you are calling for a premature American pull out, you are opting for failure. "Killing Iraqis" is a quaint phrase but it is more accurate to say that we are working side by side with Iraqis who are killing the terrorists.

So the only Iraqis that have a right to fight for what they believe are the ones the US decided to back?

 

[punkin]

The mission was to disarm Saddam and remove him from power. A new government has to be in place and able to defend itself from the terrorists who want it to fail. If you are calling for a premature American pull out, you are opting for failure. "Killing Iraqis" is a quaint phrase but it is more accurate to say that we are working side by side with Iraqis who are killing the terrorists.

OK, Saddam has been removed. A new governmen is in place. Iraq has a military/police force that is busy killing Sunis/Shiia (whichever one they are not). The country is decending into civil war. I think, we have done quite enough there already. At some point we will have to pull out and leave Iraq with the mess we made. I just think it should be sooner than later.

I was actually for the war when Bush and Powel were talking about possible weapons. When that all came out as lies and fabrications, there is no good reasons for us to be in Iraq. I am going to paraphrase what you said in an earlier post: there is no way you can force a democracy on people.

Quite honestly, the vast majority of Iraqis don't want Democracy.

 

[FergieTCat]

Maybe this was discussed somewhere along the line, but why was it illegal when Nixon did it? It was considered a count in his impeachment hearings.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/18/175052/03

There is no discussion as long as you persist in your belief that the wiretapping was illegal. It is not.

 

[What the Heck]

This thread is fascinating !

I have just one thought: When people who support Mr Bush say that , he can go above the law regardin wiretaping , because the cause is soooo important and the dangers soooo great , but , no Mr Bush could not go above the law in New Orleans and take controle, It would be taking over Louisiana sovreingnty. Why is it all right for the president to brake the law in on instance and not in the other. In one instence , no immediate danger , but possible succes, in the other, terrible immediate danger and possible succes also ! In the case where supporter of bush action are few ( illegal wiretaping) you cannot blame the other team , there is no one else to blame for the taping , so you can only support the president , on the other one ( where undred died ), you can blame someone else ,so the supporter do blame the others.

I hope I am clear , again , sometimes my english.....

Ok, why is it ok for him to break the law in one instance and not the other? Suppose, not saying you are, but just suppose you are right that he did break the law with the wiretaps? The jury is still out, but suppose you are right? In what way does that make it ok for him to go and destroy the constitution over Katrina? It's not so much faulty english as it is faulty logic. The correct answer is ... they are 2 seperate instances.

I'm not sure about the wiretapping - you will notice that in none of my posts have I defended him for that. Until I am sure, I won't come down either way. I am sure about his actions regarding Katrina. Politically, he made some major mistakes, but the levy breaking and the initial rescue of the citizens of New Orleans was not his fault. Instead of the magazine article "How Bush Blew It", it really should have been "How the Media Blew It".

 

[What the Heck]

he had to work hard for my utter contempt, but he's earned it. he's a cute little muffin-head.

Ok, I almost spewed tea all over my monitor on this one.

 

[What the Heck]

And we have left Iraq wide open for Iran (who does possess nuclear capabilities)
to take over. I might also suggest that North Korea was also a much bigger threat
and has a far more evil dictator.

Had we gone into Afghanistan with the strength we went into Iraq, I believe we would
have captured Osama Bin Laden; the rest of the world would have been supportive.

By the way, I was wondering who was still in the that 30 something percent.
Just out of curiousity: are you in the oil or pharmaceutical business or do you
work for Haliburton?

Actually, Iran would not dare go into Iraq with the status quo, for the same reason we don't go into North Korea - the politics do not allow for it.

This is why Kerry was so scary, he wanted to deal with North Korea one on one. That leaves us putting China down (in their minds) big time, and loses us any reliability in the region. Clinton tried dealing with North Korea one on one, he tried to bribe them. They accepted our money, yet went nuclear anyway.

Iran would love to attack Iraq, but dare not while we are there. The American psche still hasn't recovered from Jimmy Carters most incomprehsible failure there in 1979. Ronald Reagon won by a landslide on that issue alone. There was a political cartoon in the Washington times right after Reagon was elected, with 2 Iranians (one of them Khomeni) talking to each other. The 1st one goes, "hey Iman, what is flat and glows in the dark", the screen has "Khomeni" saying "I don't know, what" and the next cartoon has the first guy saying "Iran after Reagan is inaugorated". It then has "Khomeni" saying "I don't get it" and the first guy saying "there are some of us who wish you would consider it". They are still considering it.

One of the talking points from the left has been that we helped make Hussein strong by supporting him in the 80's. They don't point out that a Democrat in office would have done exactly the same thing or they would have been laughed out of office. In fact the funding had to go through Congress, and I really don't think there were that many Democrats saying "no, no, this guy is evil". Funny how the disdain only goes one way.

 

[DawnCt1]

So the only Iraqis that have a right to fight for what they believe are the ones the US decided to back?

No the "Iraqis" that are blowing up women and children, blowing up mosques, planting IEDs, firing mortors at public buildings, killing innocent citizens going about their business, murdering Iraqis in police recruitment lines....HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ARRESTED. What "rights" are you willing to confer on terrorists beyond their 'right to remain silent" or whatever their version of the Miranda rights are?

 

[DawnCt1]

OK, Saddam has been removed. A new governmen is in place. Iraq has a military/police force that is busy killing Sunis/Shiia (whichever one they are not). The country is decending into civil war. I think, we have done quite enough there already. At some point we will have to pull out and leave Iraq with the mess we made. I just think it should be sooner than later.

I was actually for the war when Bush and Powel were talking about possible weapons. When that all came out as lies and fabrications, there is no good reasons for us to be in Iraq. I am going to paraphrase what you said in an earlier post: there is no way you can force a democracy on people.

Quite honestly, the vast majority of Iraqis don't want Democracy.

The vast majority of Iraqi's do want democracy. Why would they turn out to the polls at great risk to themselves and vote in the numbers that they did ...in several elections? Were they forced at gun point to vote???!! In fact, they turned out in greater numbers to vote than the American citizens. Perhaps that means that Americans don't want democracy! Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Saddam papers in which all of Saddam's generals believed that there were WMDs. If anyone fabricated anything, it was Saddam himself. Our soldiers and Saddam's soldiers had chemical weapons protection gear for a reason. They all thought that they would be dealing with chemical weapons. Again, the reason to remain is Iraq is to complete the job that we have started. We did that in Germany and Japan and it took a lot longer than 3 years!

 

[crcormier]

Yeah right. DH has felt quite strongly about that little cliche, as do many of the troops. "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops". It makes sense of many levels because first and foremost, you do not want the mission to succeed.

Using that logic, the CinC could order the military to invade Canada or Mexico, or any other place he wanted to and no-one should be able to speak out against it.

I thank our service men and women for the job they do for all of us, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with what they are being ordered to do. They are doing their duty to the country, and I am thankful to them for that. It doesn't mean I have to agree with what the country is asking them to do.

They fight for my freedom to speak my mind, I think to not avail myself of the freedom they fight for is disrespectful to them.