Only if you were ignorant enough to let them.

Lets see when Carter was president I believe I was 12

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." - Mark Twain

Details details. Still Bush lied.

Some claim that Saddam had no terrorist links and that was just another lie to justify the proposed invasion. So, what about these?
.
Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein was expelled from the Philippines in February ‘03 after cellphone records showed he was in contact with leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda-allied terrorist group. An October 2002 Abu Sayyaf bomb injured 23 and killed three, including U.S. soldier Mark Wayne Jackson.
.
Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top deputy to Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents the bomb that demolished Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. That attack killed all 259 on board and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland. Baghdad resident al Salahat surrendered to U.S. Marines in April ’03 in Baghdad.
.
Delaware exchange student John Buonocore, age 20, was among those killed when the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) used guns and grenades to attack a TWA ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo Da Vinci airport in December 1986. The ANO maintained offices in Baghdad until U.S. troops liberated the Iraqi capital.
.
American Abigail Litle, the 14- year-old daughter of a Baptist minister, was killed by a Palestinian homicide bomber while riding a bus in Haifa, Israel, on March 5, 2003. Saddam Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of terrorists who killed at least 223 people, including 11 other Americans.
.
After running an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi received medical care in Baghdad once the Taliban fell. He opened an Ansar al-Islam camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
.
Abu Nidal’s terrorist gang killed 407 people, including 10 Americans, and wounded 788 more. He lived in Baghdad between 1999 and his mysterious shooting death in August 2002.
.
Abu Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the ocean liner Achille Lauro during which American retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad last April 14 '03.
.
Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, arrived in America on an Iraqi passport before fleeing after the attack on Pakistani papers.
.
September 11 hijackers Nawaz al-Hamzi left) and Khalid al-Midhar (right) were on American Airlines Flight 77 when it slammed into the Pentagon and killed 216 people. The two terrorists reportedly met Iraqi VIP airport greeter Ahmad Hikmat Shakir in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, on January 5, 2000, whereupon he escorted them to a 9-11 planning summit with other al Qaeda members.
.
The source of all these examples is the following where there are many more such examples, http://hudson.org/files/publications/mur...

Look at it this way Mickie would you want your parents coming into your house and make decisions for you and your family because you are failing miserably? It is the same in Government. Legally the Federal govt. had no authority to help unless it was requested by the state. It is that simple.

"no WMD's have been found."
-
Yep yellow cake and chemical weapons are just toys.

"Now, what happened AFTER (i.e. nothing) could have been better handled by"...

The local, county, state, federal, and most important the local citizenry. But that is ok, we all remember only GW Bush's fault.

As I already explained to Mickie, they need to take a course in Government for education, as Mickie doesn't know the line (powers & responsibility) between local, state, and federal government. No use explaining it to Mickie. They don't get it.

Because it wasn't the President's job to stand up at that point, Mickie, it was the local officials and the Governors.
+
Now, what happened AFTER (i.e. nothing) could have been better handled by the federal government.

Why have Governors than if the President is the top dog? and can make all the decisions. With your reasoning we should be one big state.

whybesad--Why wait for a gov. to declare anything?? Why not OUR PRESIDENT step up?? Is he not suppose to be the Top Dog?? So many "why`s" these days , too many.. We elect a President for these issues, Bush certainly did far more harm then good!

Same thing Slick Willie did...send a terse memo, Followed by santions on goods they already don't have.

It will be very interesting to see what Obama will do with his own foreign policy. I will be very curious to see what all these liberals who have hammered Bush non stop say about their own guy once he faced with real foreign policy decisions.
.
Mark my words he will be tested BIG TIME! . Biden even predicted that during the campaign. This whole notion of "the world now liking us" now that Obama is our leader is utterly ridiculous.
I will predict right now that Israel will make a strike against Iran, and the big question will be what will Obama's position be? Will the US give their support? The real test; however, will come with the Russians. The Putin regime (which is now run by a puppet which he fully controls) is in BIG turmoil. Plummeting oil prices have devastated their economy, and mark my word they are going to attempt to regain public support by taking over former Republics that have broken away. Georgia (back in August) was just the 1st testing of the water. When the Russians start to roll over Ukraine, the Baltic states, ext, what exactly will Obama do? No doubt he will give a great speech in how he fully condems it, but just what exactly is he going to DO about it?

"You are so up to date on the speak of WMD you must know that yellow cake is essential in nuclear enrichment."

But Iraq had no capabilities to use the yellowcake material, and no WMD's have been found.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1545...

""We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work.""

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.we...

Here is the correct troop level link.
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspape...

"By full force of the military I assume you mean nukes."

No, of course not. I mean the number of troops. We only had 10,000 troops in country following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban government (you know, the government that hosted al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden). After 7 years, we are up to 31,000 troops, and an additional 20,000 to 30,000 could finally be added next summer. After 7 years in Afghanistan, we are still fighting the same war, because Iraq went pear shaped six months after our invasion there, and required most of our fighting forces. We currently have about 147,000 troops in Iraq.
http://www.google.com/search?q=afghanist...

"Again, Bill Clinton signed into law, the Iraq Liberation Act-not GWB."

So what? It still took an act of Congress to invade Iraq, and someone to convince them it should be done.

"If he was so innocent and had nothing to hide why didn't he comply with the resolutions?"

Saddam admitted that he wanted Iran to think he had WMD's, to keep Iran from invading, so he didn't comply with the U.N. resolutions. The interview with FBI agent Piro is stunning.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/2...

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.

zoom:

Once again your consumed by simplistic, liberal talking points. By full force of the military I assume you mean nukes. Imagine if the US nuked afghanistan? Where would we be? We will never know. Its a fairytale to believe that Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11 considering the 19 attackers were Saudi. So based on your reasoning, we should be attacking Saudi Arabia.

Again, Bill Clinton signed into law, the Iraq Liberation Act-not GWB. I guess you conveniently forgot about the stated goals of US foreign policy in 1998 was regime change. We can disagree on the means to this end, but we know the Saddam regime no longer exists. Iraq and the world is better off for it. Perhaps you disagree. By the way, more people die in New Orleans by gun violence than in Baghdad.

I noticed that you could care less about a dictator who murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, one who uses chemical weapons on his own citizens and one who also sits on billion of barrels of one of the worlds most precious natural resources.

You cannot concede the point that you are overly simplistic in your argument. Lets not forget that Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden, he was too busy with Monica to make a decision. But he did get that aspirin factory at night.

Zoom..I see you are trying to write history as you see fit. WMD was "one" of the many reasons for invading Iraq. And speaking of WMD, have you even cared to read about the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that was removed from Iraq. You are so up to date on the speak of WMD you must know that yellow cake is essential in nuclear enrichment. Here is a link to your favorite news source to explain it to you http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

mikie you need to put some blame on local officials and officials at the state level. Alabama was hit by Katrina and they worked together at the state and local levels. The local officials are after all the ones on the ground and know what is going on and what type of aid is needed. The Gov. declares the state of emergency not the President.

PS -localboy..You must have a very interesting life given the fact that you were able to witness and hear this amazing conversation Bush had with Blanco...Joke.

All intelligence pointed that he had WMD's. If he was so innocent and had nothing to hide why didn't he comply with the resolutions? I think 12 years is more than generous of time to comply. He wasn't acting like he had nothing to hide.

Errr, uhhhhhhh, of course it was not Bush`s fault there was a hurricane..It was his HANDLING or rather NONhandling of the situation along with TOO many other things that he totally dropped the ball on. Probably on vacation with his dog.. Oh and *localboy*, we Americans have our FACTS just not our RETIREMENTS and BANK ACCOUNTS any longer.. But I am sure good old George and his family will never be without...Whoever quoted laughable, DISASTER in this blog, was oh so right.

"Imagine if we only "supported" The British and Russians (et al) in WWII against the nazis? Afterall, the Nazis did not attack the US on US soil. What imminent threat were the Nazis on the US way of life? No threat at all."

We took action when Iraq invaded Kuwait, which was the right thing to do. The Nazi invasion of Poland, Belgium, et. al. is in no way similar to Iraq in 2002. Saddam sabre rattled, and ignored the U.N., but had little capability to do anything more than spit on it's neighbors. The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive war, which was carried out with limited allied help, and was managed horribly, considering the ethnic conflicts brewing under the surface. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorism, despite the Bush administrations desire to link the two together to increase support for action. Imagine where we might be had we used the full force of our military in Afghanistan, the true hotbed of terrorism at the time, instead of diverting to Iraq. How could the administration be so arrogant to think that we could invade a country that didn't like us, and expect to be greated as liberators?

Zoom:

Regime change in iraq had been the stated mission of the United States since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed into Law in 1998. Who was president then? How on earth did Bush "force Bill Clinton" to sign the Iraq Liberation Act? Evidently Bush's power as Governor of Texas knew no boundary. Maybe it was Dick Cheney at Haliburton that forced Bill Clinton to sign into law, the Iraq Liberation ACt? Those evil profiteers of Haliburton have incredible power....or maybe it was simply Bill Clinton responding to a fluid situation.

I guess when a president "supports" change but does nothing to affect change-that is the right thing to do? See World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, USS cole, US Embassies in Tanazinia and Kenya in Africa 1998. I am certain Bill Clinton "supported" military action when US interested were attacked and people murdered-and by support I mean do nothing as a show of "support."

Imagine if we only "supported" The British and Russians (et al) in WWII against the nazis? Afterall, the Nazis did not attack the US on US soil. What imminent threat were the Nazis on the US way of life? No threat at all.

The US intelligence agencies "made mistakes" when they ignored the fact the Japanese were amassing a huge naval fleet in the Pacific of 1941. The intelligence communities "were not the driving force" which led the US to fight two Wars on 3 fronts. IN fact FDR ran for President in 1940 campaign slogan was “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” _what happened to this pledge? DId FDR knowningly mislead the public? No. But this is the same silly, simplistic argument you make.

"zoom nobody knew it was false at the time."

And nobody knew it was 100% acurate either. When Powell gave his famous presentation before Congress, he required that CIA Director George Tenet sit directly behind him, because Powell wanted to make sure he didn't take blame if the information was inaccurate. Yes, the intelligence community made mistakes, but they were not the driving force behind the invasion. Bush and Chaney had decided early in the administration that they wanted to get rid of Saddam.

History will be the deciding factor.

zoom nobody knew it was false at the time. And that wasn't the only reason we went into Iraq. Saddam ignored the resolutions placed on him after the first gulf war. He had 12 years to comply with those resolutions. He was given many chances to come clean.

George Bush failed as president on EVERY level. His foreign policy was heavy handed and lacked any manner of diplomacy. Instead of reaching out for support, he chose force as a means to an end. He has alienated every one of our allies at some point over the past 8 years. Our world standing has suffered due to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and the torture inflicted upon detainees held secretly around the world. It is common knowledge that talk of invading Iraq began as soon as Bush took office. Due to corrupted “Intelligence gathering” used to justify invading Iraq, our pronouncements are now met with skepticism. On the domestic front he has not contributed anything to our infrastructure as roads and bridges tumble down around us. The people of New Orleans are still waiting for their “bailout” 6 years later, while his good buddies on Wall Street only had to wait a couple weeks. The president has no control over the economy. He is not in charge of regulating any financial institutions. However, the taxpayer money he wasted in toppling a dictator, whom we all agree was vile, is analogous to treason. There are many dangerous dictators but none sitting on as much oil as Iraq. His spending has put our country in danger of collapsing, leaving us more vulnerable than we have ever been in our history. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 and only a liar (or fool) would say otherwise. His cabinet and advisors consisted of individuals whose sole purpose was to serve their OWN agenda not the people of the United States. Yes, George Bush is by far the worst President yet and history WILL confirm that fact.

"Zoom..so Saddam's continued firing at US war planes should garner no retaliation by our country?"

I never said no retaliation is warranted. We didn't invade Iraq because they shot at our planes, we invaded on the false premise of WMD's. The Bush Doctrine has completely thrown out the idea of proportional response, among other things. Invading other countries on thin evidence, without the full might of our armed forces (thank you, Rumsfeld), and with poor planning in the event of a long occupation will be our undoing.

RAF,
Your wrong and you know it. Your inept blathering about what you PERCEIVE to be real, and what IS real is the problem at hand. And I did answer your question in my post, unless of course illiteracy is something else from which you suffer.

"Since when is a question a "chestnut of Fox News illogic"."

You aren't the first person to make the statement about the economy tanking after the Dems took control. I shouldn't assume Fox news. Probably Ann Coulter, since she has a radio slot in this area.

At least we know where President Bush stands on the issues. He never waivered in the eyes of his critics. I'm afraid Obama will waiver in order to be popular which could be very bad.

"The inertia of the economy is a cruise ship, not a sports car" by your in-depth analysis Clinton should take no responsibility for economic good time during his presidency ( must have been HW Bush). And the economic down turn during GW Bush's time was from Clinton...nice logic.

Zoom..so Saddam's continued firing at US war planes should garner no retaliation by our country?

Since when is a question a "chestnut of Fox News illogic". I guess every question/statement by you is always a chestnut of MSNBC and Air America then.

"Deltafox...did the economy tank during the first six or last two years of the rule?"

I love this chestnut of Fox News illogic. Massive deregulation and lack of oversight are responsible for boom and bust cycles. The idea that the economy started to tank ONLY once the Democrats took control of Congress is laughable. The inertia of the economy is a cruise ship, not a sports car.

"Zoom...your logic continues to falter, those same terrorists learned to fly aircraft in our country should we then attack ourselves? Yet you think they were ONLY trained in Afghanistan and that makes it OK to invade that country but going into Iraq where the Gov of Saddam was firing at our warplanes for over a decade was wrong? Get off the Kool-Aid and turn off MSNBC."

We are attacking the terrorist's bases of operation, which was not Iraq. By your logic, we should invade every country that has ever supplied money to terrorists, and in the process allow tens of thousands of our brave soldiers to die, and spend trillions of dollars for years on end.

delta you are wrong again...the boon under Clinton was largely caused by the technology bubble. I am intrigued by your innate ability to fully grasp a person’s full range of expertise by inputs on a web page. Do you have the lotto numbers to share with the rest of us? So, back to my original question that you chose not to answer and deftly tried to predict my response to unasked questions…do you have an answer or not?

RAF,
You have no knowledge of the economy or how it works, do you? You were probably one of the people that was saying that the economic boom of Clinton's administration was because of the policies of Regan and Bush Sr. Yet it only took two short grid-locked years for the House and Senate to ruin the economy? Wasn't the ol' Decider hard at work? Your logic is weak, flawed, and baseless.

I voted for GW both times and I'm not ashamed to say so, but I am very disappointed at all the spending he did. Hindsight is 20/20 and so we can all say that some things about the war could have been handled differently,but we can't know what we would do without this sight afterwards. However, I have family that are in the military and some who were also injured too. But they say we are doing the right thing and I believe them. so let's finish this thing with honor and pride as is the US. let's stop this bickering and arguing and get it done. Then let's move on to better things. I didn't vote for Obama but I respect the office of the president and hope for the best. (Clinton obviously thought it wasn't do the repect it deserved!) The election is over, lets band together as Americans and bring this country back where it started.

How powerful Bush must be in the minds of liberals that the power of a hurricane was his fault. The city, county, and state of the area hit was run by Democrats but the fault is solely at the feet of the hated man who caused the hurricane. I guess we should also blame him for the more than 90 inches of snow we have received this month. I wonder where those same fingers will be pointing in the following 24 months?

Deltafox...did the economy tank during the first six or last two years of the rule?

Zoom...your logic continues to falter, those same terrorists learned to fly aircraft in our country should we then attack ourselves? Yet you think they were ONLY trained in Afghanistan and that makes it OK to invade that country but going into Iraq where the Gov of Saddam was firing at our warplanes for over a decade was wrong? Get off the Kool-Aid and turn off MSNBC.

Reading some of these posts on here make me wonder if some of the people live in the same dimension that I do. To think that Bush and the Republicans 6 year control of all three branches of our government has been anything but a disaster is a joke. Its cute how the right wants to blame Reid and Pelosi, working with a Republican grid locked Senate and a slim majority in the House(for only 2 years), for all the failures of the last 8 years. It's laughable. So laughable...

Without war:

1. Religion would still be persecuted.
2. Blacks would still be serving white people.
3. Germany would control all of Europe.
4. Communism would be the daily order (we might be headed there anyway)

I could go on.

kiowamohican,

Let's get one thing straight. I am very aware that there were both Republicans and Democrats screaming WMD. The big difference is that I don't know any liberals running around and trying to change the motivations we had when commiting to the war. Now that there aren't any WMD's, conservatives are screaming..."well, Saddam was killing his own people." If you make a mistake, at the very least own up to it, don't change your story.

mickie and gina51 - get an education in government. You need to understand local and state responsibilities and powers. Little do you know, (which the liberal press won't release) is that Bush did contact Blanco immediately and asked if she needed help. She refused due to reports from Ray Nagan (the mayor- who said he had control). The Feds just can't go in and start helping. The State needs to request it. Each state is independently governed. It was a complete failure on the local government of New Orleans, and the internal fight between the mayor, and governor of that state. Only when it became dire, did the Feds step in. It is evident how well run New Orleans is considering other border states and cities were able to respond, and apply for aid immediately, while years later, New Orleans is still a mess due to ineffecient management and corruption. Don't blame the President, as it is convenient for you to do without the facts.

Bush has been a complete JOKE. Good riddens- for those of you that believe otherwise are obviously half asleep. It`s good they use "Katrina" as an example because he did drop the ball- big time! Those dumb looks he gives like he just crapped his pants and is wondering how to wipe will not be missed. It is high time the good old USA watches out for just that-USA, when will this country realize that we CANNOT cram the American Flag and way of life down other countries throats..?..

6/24/03 "With U.N. inspection teams barred from returning to Iraq by the United States, Blix was more critical of the "shaky" intelligence he received from Washington and other capitals about sites where weapons might be hidden.

He reiterated that U.N. inspectors "were not impressed" by some of the evidence presented to the Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell -- and he was particularly dismissive of intelligence from Iraqi defectors, saying they "have not been a reliable source."

U.N. inspectors were only allowed to search for 3 months before the United States and Britain launched their invasion, which Blix said was too short."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,9024...

Here's a good clip of a few of the many Democrats who were on the whole WMD bandwagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFH...
.
It would at least be nice if the people were at least genuine. If you said from the start we should have not went to war, that is one thing, and I respect those people who have held that position right from the start. I just hate these disingenuous phonies who claim they are totally opposed to the Iraq war, yet they voted for it, and spouted all the SAME rhetoric that the Bush team did! And now all they do is put the full blame on Bush, and act like they never believed Sadddam had WMD's, and was no threat. It's really the height of hypocrisy.

"Zoom - It is no secret that Saddam was sneaking oil across the border (against sanctions) and taking the money and funneling it to Al-Queda."

That problem could have been solved by devoting ALL our resources to Afghanistan, and defeating Al-Queda once and for all! Anti-terrorism is our purpose for being in Afghanistan, after all.

Read Bush's justification for war. Almost all of the assertions he made about weapons have proven to be false. This was a preemptive war, based on "evidence" scrounged up AFTER the decision was made to invade, and with limited discussion beyond Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...

"Zoom no Afghans were part of the 911 event yet you think being there is OK?"

What? The terrorists that carried out the 9/11 disaster were Al-Qaeda, trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime.

Bush's biggest failure has been his complete sell out of all conservative principals. The Democrats really should have been happy as hell with this guy! He passed every big government spending program there was.
Government grew from about $2 trillion budget when he took office, and is now exceeding $3 trillion!
*He signed on to the; leave every child behind, school reform bill of Ted Kennedy.
*He signed on to campaign finance reform, that pissed all over the constitution, and strengthened all incumbents to almost certain re-election.
*He supported bail out after bailout, and government ownership/nationalization of major private sector business.
*His dollar policy (which was primarily the HORRIFIC move of keeping on Alan Greenspan as FOMC chairman when he took office) was so atrocious that it lead to bubble after bubble being formed in the free markets, which would ultimately collapse, and lead to all sorts of chaos.
.
Bush was a GREAT Democratic socialist! The only real good, conservative thing he did was cut taxes. That move grew revenues and helped the economy (as it always does) , but he and the Republicans in congress spent so out of control, that they still created MASSIVE deficits.
.
The Bush foreign policy has really been blown out of proportion by the opposition. Most all the Democrats fully supported the moves that Bush made, and are all on record with preaching the SAME dogma that Bush was about Iraq having WMD's, and the need to do something.. They simply opposed it when the war started to go astray and grow old on the public. And then proceeded to act like hey never did sign onto it.
.
History will ultimately be the judge of Bush. For all the morons who say "worse President ever", and proceed to site the approval numbers, you should really read your history. Harry S Truman left office with AWFUL approval numbers, and many were saying he'd go down as the worse President of all time. Well, 60 years later, most now agree he was one of the better Presidents to serve the office. Lincoln also had God awful public approval at the time of his death. Seems history regards him pretty highly! I doubt Bush will go down as anything special, but I doubt he will go down as one of the worse ever either.

Anyone remember "Katrina"??

You could try reading it...'Rice noted that while Germany was reunified in 1990, the work that made it possible was done in the 1940s, "when things didn't look quite so rosy." So historians who are now making judgments about the Bush administration and its Middle East policies aren't very good historians, Rice said.

"One cannot yet judge the effects of decisions that this president has taken on what the Middle East will become,"'

Wait a minute, Mrs. Bush and a member of the Bush administration believe the Bush Presidency is not a failure? Hmmmmmmm. Thanks for that mind-boggling news.

"As evidenced by all of the terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11...."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but our diversion of troups from Afghanistan will have long term effects.

That may be true, but the point is that our country has been free from any attacks since 9/11, so I seriously doubt the US is considered to be "less safe" than before.....

Zoom - gassing the Kurds was an example of what Saddam was capable of doing, with WMD. It wasn't justification for invading Iraq, but it was thought that if he would do that to his own people, and he had the WMD, he would easily do it against the U.S. Don't be so naive, and twist my words to support your liberal anti-Bush views. By the way, Clinton didn't just "lie", he lied under oath which is purjury. What kind of country do we have when our leader doesn't have to follow the law?

Zoom - It is no secret that Saddam was sneaking oil across the border (against sanctions) and taking the money and funneling it to Al-Queda. That is how Saddam was a threat to the U.S. even if he didn't have any WMD. I am not aware of any threats to the U.S. from Sudan.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7498/

Zoom no Afghans were part of the 911 event yet you think being there is OK?

"The reasoning behind the war in Iraq can be argued, but the end results are still noble. We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq."

You speak like the job is somehow finished. Far from it. It will be at least two more years before a substantial number of troops will leave Iraq. Then what? Nobody can predict what Iraq will be like two years from now. Afghanistan is in no way "liberated" from el Qaeda. We've lost any gains we once had, and now are starting over.

Blame it all on Bush if that makes you sleep better at night. How well do you think the children in Iraq are sleeping? The Democrats have been trying to separate this country for eight years, and now they're preaching about getting along? Give me a F'n break!
They have hung our president out to dry and could care less about Republicans, now they are calling for us to rally behind our new savior? I will, but not by choice...

Minan Obama is "the one" He was selected to become the savior. Don't start making excuses for failure before he even takes the oath of office.

Yeah, it's just Bush. Forget about Pelosi and Reid. There you go again.
"Bush will go down on record as the worst president in at least 80 years perhaps even longer." -that my friend, depends on who you believe when you hear whatever lies it is you're being told.

Like I have said before. Until ANY ONE OF US sits a minute in the oval office, and walks a mile in the shoes of a politician, I really don't think we have any room to talk about what should or shouldn't be done. Sure, we can have our opinions, but we sure as heck don't have a clue how to run a contry. I can say that with certaintly....especially since most of you think there is a conspiracy of the snow plowers.....

I've stated this before, but I think this president has taken a lot of un-due slack during his two terms. Granted, he's made mistakes and there is no way to deny that. However, considering we had the largest attack on U.S. soil, the largest natural disaster, and two wars, things could be much worse. The economy stayed relatively strong until this year considering the various circumstances. Critics will blame Bush entirely for our economic woes, but our current situation is decades in the making. We have become a credit card happy and consumer driven economy. A whole generation of kids grew up without struggle and bought what they wanted. As a result, they took out home loans and carried debt they couldn't pay back. Granted, a quicker fiscal reaction and regulation may have helped, but I believe we would have faced the music sooner or later anyway. The reasoning behind the war in Iraq can be argued, but the end results are still noble. We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, we'll have future alleys in a troubled region of the world. This even though Bush got little support toward the end of his second term for the Iraq campaign and senate critics termed the war "Lost." Until I see a president face the same type of adversity in eight years that this president has faced, I'll wait to judge. Certainly future presidents can learn from Bushes mistakes. I hope for Obama's sake, that he gets more support when tough decisions have to be made. Even Obama will make a mistake at some point or an unpopular decision. It would be naive to think "hope" alone will get him through one or two terms unscathed. Hopefully Republicans will cut Obama more slack than Democrats did Bush.

"At least Bush "manned" up and said that he made a mistake after the intel came up false. More than we can say about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton."

Oh, how I long for the days when the worst mistake our president made was lying about some hanky panky in the White House.

"No we can't do something about every unjust government or nation, but we had the resources in place to support the removal of the "Butcher of Baghdad" with both an economic interest for our nation at stake as well as providing peace and stability for our strategic allies in the region..."

If removal of a dictator, and providing peace and stability for our allies, were the sole reasons to invade, the U.S. citizens would never have approved it. It was the fear of another 9/11, using a foggy threat of WMD's, that scared most of the country.

"Zoom - Africa is a threat to the U.S.?"

Never said that. You brought up the gassing of Kurds as justification for invading Iraq.

"After the intel failure was discovered, the mission was altered to removing a dictator, and creating a democracy. It was also a strategic move to provide stability in a otherwise unstable region."

You are revising history. The intel failure was not admitted until AFTER we already invaded. The mission was always to remove Saddam and create a democracy. What do you think we were doing there? The plan was never to invade, remove WMD's, get out, and leave Saddam in place. Now, the region is much less stable than before. An evil dictator has been replaced with a terrorist training ground.

In Iraq, the road to hell was paved with the shards of people run through industrial shredding machines feet first.
.
No we can't do something about every unjust government or nation, but we had the resources in place to support the removal of the "Butcher of Baghdad" with both an economic interest for our nation at stake as well as providing peace and stability for our strategic allies in the region aside from the WMD that Saddam behaved as though he was defiantly protecting until the invasion in violation of the agreements he signed.

"As evidenced by all of the terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11...."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but our diversion of troups from Afghanistan will have long term effects.

"Zoom, quit using the same old rhetoric about the WMD. It was failed intel reports that gave Bush the reason to invade Iraq."

Facts aren't rhetoric. The Bush administration is now blaming the intelligence, when at the time, they knew it was weak. You obviously have not seen the recent ABC news interview with Chainey. Basically, Chainey said that in hindsight, Saddam had "intentions" of resuming a WMD program, so it's good that we toppled his government, even though he had no weapons at the time. Why is it O.K. for the U.S. to invade another country on "intentions"? Saddam himself admitted at the end that he only wanted Iran to believe he had a weapons program, and didn't think the U.S. would invade, so he ignored U.N. resolutions.

"Are you saying that the U.S., Great Britain, and even Iraqi insiders all gathered together to conspire? They all wanted to give Bush a reason to go into Iraq?"

The U.S. led, and G.B. followed. The citizens of G.B. are not holding the Blair administration blameless, by the way. You fail to mention our other NATO allies that DIDN'T follow us into Iraq. They were not convinced.

"I guess thousands of Kurds that were gassed by Saddam was just a mirage?"

No mirage, but hardly enough reason to invade a country. Why aren't we invading Sudan, which has authorized the genocide of an entire race in Darfur, and has been going on for most of Bush's two terms?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/0...

"In the shadow of 9/11 what was Bush to do? Who was going to protect Americans from another attack."

Please explain how Iraq had any capability to attack the U.S. Please show us the overwelming evidence given at the time. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Zoom - Africa is a threat to the U.S.? What weed have you been smoking? Our main purpose for invading Iraq was for security reasons. After the intel failure was discovered, the mission was altered to removing a dictator, and creating a democracy. It was also a strategic move to provide stability in a otherwise unstable region. I hardly consider Africa's problems a threat to the U.S.

"In the long run, the invasion of Iraq may actually make the U.S. less safe than before."

As evidenced by all of the terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11....

"Zoom a question for you. Do you believe it was a good thing to get Suddam out of power?"

At a cost of thousands of our brave soldiers lives, and tens of thousands of civillian lives, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of wounded and scarred? No. While Sadaam was certainly an evil dictator, he alone was not a good enough reason for the U.S. to topple an entire government. There are other countries where many more people have been massacred than what was happening in Iraq, yet nobody in the U.S. is clamoring for us to invade. Just look at what is happening in parts of Africa. It is simply horrible. In the long run, the invasion of Iraq may actually make the U.S. less safe than before.

Zoom, quit using the same old rhetoric about the WMD. It was failed intel reports that gave Bush the reason to invade Iraq. Are you saying that the U.S., Great Britain, and even Iraqi insiders all gathered together to conspire? They all wanted to give Bush a reason to go into Iraq? I guess thousands of Kurds that were gassed by Saddam was just a mirage? In the shadow of 9/11 what was Bush to do? Who was going to protect Americans from another attack. The U.N.??? At least Bush "manned" up and said that he made a mistake after the intel came up false. More than we can say about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton.

Zoom a question for you. Do you believe it was a good thing to get Suddam out of power? I for one believe it was, do I believe that mistakes were made? Yes very much so. Hindsight is always better than foresight. Entering Iraq only opened many more smaller problems. Only time will tell if it was good thing to do.

...and Afghanistan is hardly "liberated". What has Mrs. Bush been smoking?

"Mrs. Bush noted that under her husband's watch, the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein and liberated millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq from oppressive governments."

The problem is that "liberation" was not the reason given for invading Iraq, nor would that have been good enough for the American public to accept. We were sold on the idea that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and it's neighbors (WMD's), when there was no good evidence to back up that claim. Now we know that Saddam was lying about his capabilities, in order to keep Iran at bay. Even Chainey recently admitted that the administration wanted to invade REGARDLESS of any evidence. This singular, colossal failure of the Bush administration will forever overshadow any good he did while in office.

TCB - don't forget the hostages Carter failed to return to America. What a feeling that must be to think your President wouldn't come for you in a time of need.

Who'd they asking??? His rich buddies i'll bet,none of the soon to be gone middle class & poor would give a "O" rating! And ALL you people that voted for him once,and then twice,your ALL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL's too!

chelleanlou

I guess you dont remember Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy's legacy:
18% mortgage rates (what are they today?)
12% inflation (what is it today)
10-15% unemployement (what is it today?)
misery index

Yes, Janesville thrived when Jimmy was in office.

Well, at least today he's the worst ever. No doubt. I think it's absolutly crazy that he was elected once much less twice.

Yeah, just wait. Two hundred years from now, Bush probably won't look so bad. All of his critics are going to feel pretty darned foolish then. ;-)