Who has more executive eperience?

[DawnCt1]

So why did the US Govt. say they THOUGHT they had them, and realized they had made a mistake?

This country is lied to on a perm basis. I am a bloody Republican, and I can admit the truth. What the heck???

So since you have all the answers YOU tell us here why we went into Iraq. Do you believe it was just over WMD?

I believe that Saddam had them and they were transported to another neighboring country. He certainly had the means to ramp up as soon as the sanctions were lifted, and eventually, they would have been lifted.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

I'm going to call you out on this piece of political BS, too.
Bush "lied"?
Please furnish proof that Bush willingly, knowingly lied. Until then, you are practicing libel. I'd be careful, especially as a mod.
And, we were "involved" in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein. No one else.

Yes we were involved with Saddam Hussein and no one else because we wanted something from him that he was not willing to give

According to you, have we "lost" in Iraq?
Despite the slanderous political rhetoric to the contrary, it never was a war over oil. And, if it was, so what. Oil is the lifeblood to the US. It is worth going to war over.

IT IS A WAR OVER OIL!!!! There isn't anything wrong with it, but for goodness sakes be truthful about it. Why won't they be truthful, Rayelias?

My question is what position are you going to take - was it never a war over oil, or is it a "so what if it was?" Make up your mind here. No wishy washy.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm going to call you out on this piece of political BS, too.
Bush "lied"?
Please furnish proof that Bush willingly, knowingly lied. Until then, you are practicing libel. I'd be careful, especially as a mod.
And, we were "involved" in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein. No one else.

According to you, have we "lost" in Iraq?
Despite the slanderous political rhetoric to the contrary, it never was a war over oil. And, if it was, so what. Oil is the lifeblood to the US. It is worth going to war over.

Define lied:

Giving an inaccurate or false statement. Pretty much sums it up. If Saddam had such weapons, surely he would have used them against the US forces to save his own skin, no? Or did they just mysteriously disappear, did they truck them away somewhere, without us even having a clue as to where, with all of our satellite and spy technology?

We have not "won" anything. We have "lost" the lives of many American citizens, and destroyed many families. We have "lost" billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, while ignoring our own crumbling infrastructure.

If we did go to war because of Saddam, why? What threat did he pose to the US? We had no problem getting oil from him before, did we?

So, were we involved in Iraq because of Saddam, or oil, WMDs, or the mobile chemical weapons plants they had "photos" of (that also turned out to be false)? Will we ever know? Sorry, I'm not OK killing over 4,000 Americans just to get oil, and I doubt their families are, either. Of course, I may be wrong, they may have been thrilled to trade the life of their child, father or husband for oil. Something tells me no, though.

Despite the slanderous political rhetoric to the contrary, it never was a war over oil. And, if it was, so what.

So was it NEVER a war over oil, or was it? Make up your mind.

 

[TLSnell1981]

There's a myriad of reasons why we are in Irag. War is horrible. There have always been wars and sadly always will be. No one will ever agree on the reasons we go to war. Don't over simplifiy it by being so flip.

 

[Chuck S]

There's a myriad of reasons why we are in Irag. War is horrible. There have always been wars and sadly always will be. No one will ever agree on the reasons we go to war. Don't over simplifiy it by being so flip.

Absolutely war is horrible, and cost the lives of many, many Americans. I feel horrible for the families that have lost loved ones. My parents and grandparents were in the army and marines.

But if there is/was a legitimate reason to go to war in Iraq, they could have presented it to the American people. I think Americans understand that there are reasons for war, as awful as it is. But I also think we, as Americans, deserve to know the truth as to why we are there.

 

[duckfan78]

wow, look at those poll results. I guess we can all agree it is a blow out.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Absolutely war is horrible, and cost the lives of many, many Americans. I feel horrible for the families that have lost loved ones. My parents and grandparents were in the army and marines.

But if there is/was a legitimate reason to go to war in Iraq, they could have presented it to the American people. I think Americans understand that there are reasons for war, as awful as it is. But I also think we, as Americans, deserve to know the truth as to why we are there.

I don't think we have to know all. If we know all...than so does our enemies. I think the reason it has been so difficult for the US to "win" a war since WWII is the media. Everyone is so worried about who's going to scoop who....they are irresponsible on their reporting. If you look at a map...I think it's pretty clear what one big reason is....Iran.

 

[TLSnell1981]

wow, look at those poll results. I guess we can all agree it is a blow out.

This country is too divided for it to be a "blow out".....but this morning....Zogby does have McCain/Palin up 2 points over Obama/Biden.

 

[loco4dis]

I almost responded to the Iraq War debate. Almost. I wrote something, but then I decided, "Eh, fuhgeddaboudit." They don't call it Bush Derangement Syndrome for nothing. It's a Derangement syndrome. Arguing with the "Bush lied" crowd is like engaging that guy who stands outside of the shopping center with his curiously bottle shaped paper bag and little cardboard sign that says "Vet, will work for food." I always give the old guy a five or 10, but I never engage him in discussions of current events. You know, cuz he thinks his name is Jesus Christ and he needs the money to hide from the aliens who are trying to drill into his brain. He's, ummmm, deranged.

 

[shortbun]

Where's the who cares selection? While the obvious answer is Palin, her 'experience' is laughable when it comes to making her qualified to be the leader of the free world. Experience has never been my criteria for voting and it should never be anyone's criteria. Many experienced administrators are BAD administrators therefore should never rise to the level of POTUS. These are real jobs these people are wanting and they take real people with good judgement, intellect, curiosity, flexibility, humility, education, polish, international acceptance and respect, levelheadedness, an ability to place ego aside. statesmanship(women included) and an ability to detach from all other issues and focus on crisis if necessary. There is more, of course but these qualities are the bare minimum that SHOULD be required of the leader of our wonderful country. We have not had this in the last 8 years and desperately need it now. We know NOTHING about Palin. I am not going to accept the public image the GOP is going to create to get her votes. McCain is making a mockery of our country by gambling on OUR future to further his desires. Shame on you John!

 

[duckfan78]

This country is too divided for it to be a "blow out".....but this morning....Zogby does have McCain/Palin up 2 points over Obama/Biden.

wow, I didn't see that poll yet. I figured McCAin would start to pull away soon. I don't think it will be a blow out either. But they will win a substantial majority.

 

[DVCKennyD]

And that helps the US interests how, exactly? I mean, if that is our simple goal, to give every citizen of every country the right to vote, we'll be at war for several hundred years, at least. And probably really bankrupt us, since we seem to have to pay all the rebuilding expenses, too, even though they have $$$ available. Again, what have we won?

Who's next on our "citizen liberation list?"

Sorry I'm so late to the party here , but I feel obligated to respond...

Is it really that difficult to understand?? How about a "foothold"?? Establishing a fledgling Democracy in arguably the most vital and strategically important part of the world?? (READ:OIL) There is a reason we will fight to maintain the open International shipping routes through the Straits of Hormuz and the Suez Canal And EVERYBODY, both "friends" and "enemies" alike, know it. Sure would be nice to have a few more "friends" over there... The old "try it you might like it" theory.

Look at Iraq now... Woman voting??? Actual elections?? Who would have thunk it? IMO, it is pretty elemental.

KennyD

 

[DVCKennyD]

One more thing ... I'm sorry if this is located in the wrong thread, but I'm too lazy to start or add to another, and frankly, they all seem to end up the same way anyways.

This is what we fellow Conservatives are up against this fall... Charming huh??
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/absentee/2008/aug/30/fowler-fouls-hurricane-is-gods-favor-to-dem/

KennyD

 

[GlendaO]

I don't like either ticket this time. It's sad but at least this election I won't wind up with a migraine after the results!

Anyway, thought this was interesting...it appears that historically US citizens are interested in executive experience.

For the past sixty years, there have been fourteen Presidential elections:

Eight races included at least one Senator while only two (Truman and Kennedy) have won.
No Senator has won an election in the past forty years (10 elections).
Former governors have won six of the past seven elections.
Former Congressmen have won the election four times, a retired Army General twice.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

I don't like either ticket this time. It's sad but at least this election I won't wind up with a migraine after the results!

Anyway, thought this was interesting...it appears that historically US citizens are interested in executive experience.

For the past sixty years, there have been fourteen Presidential elections:

Eight races included at least one Senator while only two (Truman and Kennedy) have won.
No Senator has won an election in the past forty years (10 elections).
Former governors have won six of the past seven elections.
Former Congressmen have won the election four times, a retired Army General twice.

It looks like Governors do seem to have an advantage. Thanks for looking that up!

 

[penguin087]

For the past sixty years, there have been fourteen Presidential elections:

Eight races included at least one Senator while only two (Truman and Kennedy) have won.
No Senator has won an election in the past forty years (10 elections).
Former governors have won six of the past seven elections.
Former Congressmen have won the election four times, a retired Army General twice.

Interesting stats. Thanks.