A couple of things...

Just because you would "love to" do something, doesn't mean that you would.

This person is just a moron, but people with low levels of intelligence can do good things for others... look at what Sean Penn did after Katrina.

Is it OK to kill Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Kim Jong-Il?

Would it have OK to kill Stalin? Lenin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Hitler?

I am not comparing Bush to any of these folks. Don't get hysterical.

However, Mr. Bush's war has caused the deaths of at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians and 2500 soldiers.

Osama bin Laden murdered 2750 on 9/11.

So what differentiates terrorists and dictators from Mr. Bush? The number killed or the method? The means or the end?

Wade

You mean this Betty Willams?

She joined the Irish Republican Army (the terrorist organization called the IRA) in 1972.

No wonder she got the "peace" prize. She's in good company with another peace maker, Yasser Arafat, gentle soul and father of the terrorist organization PLO.

I guess it puts her in good company with Bush and his gang of terrorists...Everyone raise your glass if your actions directly caused the deaths of children!

Bush and the gang of terrorists?

Please explain TEO...oh please explain. This should be delicious.

*Shrugs*

While I don't think she should have said something like this to kids I'm perfectly fine with it. I've said things like "I'd love to kill this or that liberal f#$ktard" now and again. Just because I could doesn't mean I would.

Then again I'm not a peace prize winner, nor would I want to be.

I guess it puts her in good company

With that comment, you slip into the realm of troll, and I am done with you.

Third eye you fascist scum bag. Calling our president a terrorist?

You mean a terrorist responsible for a $400 billion drug bill for seniors?

You mean a terrorist responsible for an increase, according to congressional budget officials, in spending for education, job training, unemployment assistance, Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, food stamps and other "human resources" from 11.5 percent of GDP to 12.7 percent?

You mean under a terrorist where for every dollar increase in defense spending, there has been a $2.15 increase in socail spending?

That sort of terrorist?

What a prick you truly are you fascist sicko. Remember, scratch a liberal and find a fascist underneath every single time...

By the way you can save me your traitorous reply. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire...

As if you Republicons ever gave a wit about "muderous dictators"...

Key criteria to define terrorism:

Violence: Pretty much a given

Psycological Impact and Fear: The act itself [violence; war] is being perpetrated to elicit a response of fear within the group which is being targeted. For instance, our actions with regards to 'Shock and Awe' was a clear attempt to propagate fear within the populace and reduce their uge to react with force. the message was clear that the USA was capable of flattening the country if they wish, without even putting a soldier on the ground.

Perpetrated for a Political Goal: It is quite obvious that we have a political goal in mind, some argue that this goal is more nefarious than the stated position of the Bush administration, but none-the-less, there are clearly stated political outcomes which we wish to control.

Targeting of Non-Comabtants: The collective retributive nature of the US policy towards the world in general, and iraq specifically is clear. We have no problem instituting political/economic/physical violence towards a nation or people based on the actions or intent of a small group of them. The sanctions of Iraq post '91 were a perfect example of a policy which starved a nation of people who had little or no recourse with which to remove those sanctions from their backs, thus the death of an estimated 500,000 children due to starvation and disease, and the lack of products to clean the water supply, including chlorine, which was a "dual use" chemical led to unimaginable pain and suffering on top of the political horrors they endured at the hands of Saddam and his regime.

As a footnote, I would remind you that the policy of "Low Intensity Warefare", which is condoned by the US government, bears a striking resemblence to "terrorism".

I would remind you that you are now oficially a troll. Get lost.

GOP,

Perhaps you should take a history class and realize that Saddam, the "terrorists terrorist" along with Hamasm hezbollah, and the civilian wing of the IRA all paid HUGE sums of money to feed, clothe, medicate, and shelter their people. Saddam actually was seen as a progressive leader by Reagan, instituting a plethora of public works and infrastructure building, coddling of the "arts", and a social pension system...so try that load of BS on some of your wide-eyed friends.

Get lost, troll.

Rev,

We will always have Paris in the Spring.

xoxoxo

Actually the GOP has given a wit about many of them. That's why they removed Noriega. That's why they removed Saddam Hussein. Etc, etc

We will always have...

Get lost, troll.

TEO...great analogy...really bright. You know, Hitler also provided for his own people with healthcare, insurance, etc.

So do the drug cartels in Columbia where the poor will not rat them out because they provide money for the poor.

Does that make them right...no. But hey, there you go siding with terrorists again.

We will always have...

Get lost, troll.

Matt:

I know this if off topic - When are you going to respond to William F. Buckley's interview regarding Bush today? Sorry if you have addressed it elsewhere already.

Thanks

Warrior,

You obviously missed the thread or the point.

Just shooting down excuses by GOP, but thanks for mentioning Hitler, how could I forget him.

You are right, TEO. For all his murderous, authoritarian ways, Saddam was just about the most western leaning leader in the region. To Saddam, emulating the west, and eschewing backwards fundamentalist ideas, was seen key to modernizing the country. The Iraqi regime we toppled was a secular government, and as such was anathema to Osama and his ilk of theocrats.

While Saddam was truly a despicable human being, the fact is that women in Iraq had the most freedom and equality in the region. Iraqi women attended university with men, and became doctors, lawyers, government ministers, etc. They were not forced to wear chadors, burkhas, or even head scarves. The former head of Saddam's Bio-weapons program in the 80's (you know, back when we supported Saddam) was a woman!

And religious diversity was well respected in Iraq as well. As long as you didn't openly oppose the government (ie, the Shi'a taking up arms in open rebellion), you were free to worship as you please. Most Americans don't know that there are significant Jewish and Christian minority communities in Iraq that have always been allowed to freely attend church or synogogue. Iraq's foreign minister was a Christian, for Jehovah's sake!

But what about Iraq now? Increasingly, religious fundamentalists are asserting greater control over all levels of society. Is this what we fought for in Iraq?: a theocracy closely allied with Iran that severely curtails women rights and the rights of minority religions?

You obviously missed

Get lost, troll.

Yale and Oxford Scientists find brain activity 31 days after fertilization....I guess that kills the pro-abortion crowd's argument that these are not living creatures and feel no pain.

31 days later

Perhaps you should take a history class and realize that Saddam, the "terrorists terrorist" along with Hamasm hezbollah, and the civilian wing of the IRA all paid HUGE sums of money to feed, clothe, medicate, and shelter their people

~~~~~~~~

LMAO. So? Charles Manson was really good to his 'people' too. And look how that all turned up. Please.

Perhaps you should take a history class and realize that Saddam, the "terrorists terrorist" along with Hamasm hezbollah, and the civilian wing of the IRA all paid HUGE sums of money to feed, clothe, medicate, and shelter their people

~~~~~~~~

LMAO. So? Charles Manson was really good to his 'people' too. And look how that all turned up. Please.

And look how that all turned up. Please.

He's a troll, what do you expect?

Yale and Oxford Scientists find brain activity

Do you think that will make any difference to those with a lust for killing the unborn. They don't care and they never did care about the fetus being a human. If they did, how do you explain their vigorous support for partial birth abortions, a truly gruesome process where there's no denying the humanity of the child killed? That "not really human crap" was all a scam. They'll just make something else up now.

AFWIFE,

I appreciate you proving my point, but I don't think you quite realize you're doing it.

Let me explain, follow along:

Just because someone (President, Dictator, terrorist organization) pays a lot of money to "take care" of their people, doesn't mean they aren't doing really bad things at the same time. This benevolent gesture should not be used as the only example of the motives of that person/state/administration.

Since apparently this thread has veered off topic:

Surprise, surprise.

"President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

"'This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,' said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. 'If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.'"

So --- if our scientists are "biased", our professors are "biased", and our historians are "biased" --- are America's lawyers now biased against Bush too?

Please explain.

maf,

We've been over this before, 'reality in general has a well-known liberal bias'

maf,

We've been over this before, 'reality in general has a well-known liberal bias'

POOP-NUGGETS!

That's what I have to say about those darn blue screens!

Yeah TEO, that must be it. So much so that REALITY hasn't been more than 50% behind a liberal Presidential candidate in 31 years.

That's REALITY!

We've been over this before

Get lost, troll.

Did ya'll miss me? LOL. :-)

Too bad they can't revoke her Nobel Peace prize ... she's obviously not the peaceful type and doesn't seem to want it anyway. What a buffoon.

someone, [not naming any names] that keeps saying someon else [again, not naming any names] is a troll - that someone is extreeeemely lame and apparently doesn't wish to engage in any kind of intelligent discussion. too bad.

Third Eye - i like your tack - might not agree on all of it, but you present your thoughts well.

Warrior,

If it took the worst disaster in modern American history and two wars to get him 50%, just think, maybe armageddon will get him 70%.

excuse me, weenienation, but Clinton's approval rating peaked at 72% in december of '98, and it never dropped below 57% between '97 and 2000.

you're the one that's out of touch with reality if you think this president and his 30% lemming-rating is anything to be proud of.

This woman is a flaming "Nobel" ass.

maf -
apparently facts are now liberal-biased, too.

Yes, this woman is a raving fool for saying that.

Now, about those signing statements ... what's that I hear, crickets?

this blog is taking a long time to approve my comments = lame.

i would like to point out that the young audience CHEERED her comments.

the truth will set you free - the children know how awful this president is and they clearly want to see a change. the eyes of the young see clearly through all the PR hype and talking points to the fact that Bush and his cronies are ruining america for everybody but their rich buddies.

...look at what Sean Penn did after Katrina.

What did he do, smoke another bowl?

By the way you can save me your traitorous reply. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire..

Goop, whazzup? Scrutator a little slow today? I'll send over some trolls. Turd-Eye, mf'n53, head on over to Scrutator; the home of right-wing sanity...

,i>As if you Republicons ever gave a wit about "muderous dictators"...

Dare I say it, they may have voted for one?

This lunatic, is of the same ilk as some of our colleges "teaching" their hateful, liberal bull shit." TEO, you need to get a life, as you spend alot of time on this site, spewing out your bullshit that no one cares about. Get Lost Jerk

Sorry, couldn't let this one go by, and I'm only trying to help
War and Rev...31 days....try to understand the article and the science before you comment, you're only making yourselves look uninformed and fanatical

Warmongers condemning a person as one,talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This lady would never kill anyone, unlike the Christian fascist/neo-con/Zionists who have about 40,000 dead Iraqi's, so far, and 2000 wounded and killed in Lebanon in the past two weeks, on thier warmonger heads. Peace

I wonder if Hizbollah would show peace to Steve if they were given a crack at him.

I'm pretty sure at that moment, he'd wish he was with the Christian fascists/neo-cons/Zionists.

He's not only a hypocrite, but a racist.

The cheer seems to be....go go go go TEO. I add my voice to the many....get lost. You adding 'Bush and his gang of terrorists' is over the top and you have become irrelevent to thoughtful discourse. When we all say go go go...we mean for you to take Maf, steve, t(h)om thumb, and lard ash with ya.

t(h)om...we don't elect people based on their approval ratings.

We have something called ELECTIONS which is why approval ratings and polls don't mean squire there junior.

Polls often ask "adults", not registered voters, not likely voters and of course they are subject to lying and everything else. They are also based on samples usually of about 1000 people.

This, again, is why we have elections. Look it up!

t(h)om...we don't elect people based on their approval ratings.

We have something called ELECTIONS which is why approval ratings and polls don't mean squire there junior.

Polls often ask "adults", not registered voters, not likely voters and of course they are subject to lying and everything else. They are also based on samples usually of about 1000 people.

This, again, is why we have elections. Look it up!

TEO, maybe it did take that to get him elected...point is in the last 31 years NOTHING has gotten one of your clowns to 50%...nothing....NOTHING.

I repeat....NOTHING.

POOP NUGGETS...that's what comes out of that eternally open Third Eye. I commented on its location between TEO's cheeks, but it took the Rev to call it the Brown Eye.

Maf is so smitten by the NYT article, he just can't let it go. I addressed it in another thread. It's all about some OPINIONS of some Liberal Lefty lawyers, and totally ignores all the legal rulings from courts ranging all the way up to the Supreme Court upholding the President's Consitutional powers.

But hey, if you're a Lefty, you can make up your own definitions.

So if two men can call their relationship a "marriage" then I can call my VW a Corvette. If two men in a committed and legally recognized relationship can call it a marriage, in spite of its obvious limitations, then a '74 Thing, with its engine, four wheels, seats, a steering wheel, and a radio, can be called a Corvette---never mind the details. So I should be able to belong to the local Corvette club, show my car at Corvette shows, ride along with other Corvettes in parades and rallies, compete in Corvette competitions, and advertise it as a Corvette. And if anyone dares to complain, well, they are just nasty bigoted car-ists, and evil and mean and should be sued and are discriminatory and illegal and trampling on my RIGHTS. Because I have the RIGHT to use any word I want to, any way I want to, to mean anything I want it to mean.

And if I am a Lefty, I can say legal is illegal, right is wrong, a coalition is unilateral, constitutional is unconstitutional, smart is dumb, serving is AWOL, winning is losing, and increased tax revenues are depleting the treasury.
Actually, the only way to BE a neorad Lefty is to practice this doublespeak on a regular basis.

The only place the eye and errortime and their fellow travelers make sense is down the rabbit hole----or on the Animal Farm.

Almiranta,

I thought you righty-types got your panties in a bunch about moral equivalencies?

Whether the car has buttons and whistles is irrelevant, it is still a car, which is the basic nature of what we are talking about. Whether YOUR car is faster, prettier, or more in demand than my car means nothing, since they both perform the function they were intended to do.

Marriage was never defined in our constitution for a reason, the founders knew that times would change, and while I don't think they envisioned two men trying to marry, I don't think they envisioned marriages of convenience, or marriages measured in hours either, it doesn't make them any less relevant, since value judgements are not the factor we are calling into question here.

Secondly, the NYT article was interesting to say the least, and while the ABA is a HUGE group, it is still merely an opinion, and doesn't carry any legal weight. On the other hand, you are quite mistaken in that the Supreme Court has NEVER touched upon the subject of signing statements until recently in the Hamdan case, where Scalia touched upon it in a MINORITY decision, so as you can see, the only time the mention of these signing statements is even brought up, is to defend a losing case.

Dickdee,

Well, thanks for your opinion, but until the point when you get Matt or Mark to agree with you, and remove me from the site, I will just laugh-off your feelings, and keep-on keepin' on

Peace

Eyes Closed,

Marriage was not defined in the constitution because NO ONE would EVER have THOUGHT that a bunch of looney liberal nuts could believe marriage included two men, two women, a mother and daughter, a father and a son, two brothers, two sisters, or any other nutty combination you looney liberals can dream up!

Did you forget that sodomy was punishable by extended prison sentences or even death at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. Even a moron is capable of understanding that if people are being hanged for sodomy, they would never have permitted homosexual or lesbian "marriages"... but then, they could never, in their wildest dreams, have imagined anything like today's looney liberals!

Never in human history has marriage ever been defined the way you liberals want to make it!

Go to Canada or Europe and do your thing there!!!

AAR

Ok, so ousting Saddam Hussein from power can suddenly be justified because he was a brutal dictator. Well then, by that reasoning why don't you just go and overthrow 90 % of the African governments as well The fact the guy was a monster was just an expedient excuse to oust his government. Before he disobeyed the US (invading Kuwait) he was praised by Henry Kissinger and later on, the Reagan adminstration as a "strong leader" and a US ally. This is because he was fighting against the Marxist Iranians. He was still a monster then as he is now. The only thing that changed was his expedience to the U.S. cause in the Middle East. George Bush was acting out of a sense of compassion for the Iraqi people? Please, don't be so naive.

Ignoring all the trolls who apparently don't read the articles, I went and read the article itself. Another lefty reveals their murderous thoughts against conservatives is what I saw.

From the article, we read;

Now the former office receptionist heads the World Centres of Compassion for Children International, a non-profit group working to create a political voice for children.
"My job is to tell you their stories," Ms Williams said of a recent trip to Iraq.
"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise. From the first Gulf War, the mothers' wombs were infected.
"As I was leaving the hospital, I said to the doctor, 'How many of these babies do you think are going to live?'
"He looked me straight in the eye and said, 'None, not one'. They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."

Why is she also couldn't kill Clinton? Did he not enforce those same embargoes for 8 long years while he played with interns in the Oval Office?

Why is it she cannot also kill Kofi Annan? Has he not also enforced those embargoes ever since the cease fire of the first Gulf War?

What does George W. Bush have to do with UN embargoes initiated long before he was elected have to do with anything?

It's obvious to me that the lefty Neo-Coms have a severe problem when it comes to comprehension and just who it is causing the problems they complain about.

"And if I am a Lefty, I can say legal is illegal, right is wrong, a coalition is unilateral, constitutional is unconstitutional, smart is dumb, serving is AWOL, winning is losing, and increased tax revenues are depleting the treasury." Posted by: Almiranta

Spot on, Almiranta!
I read a comment last week on LGF about this Neorad doublespeak-"Orwell meant '1984' as a warning. Liberals use it as a playbook." Scary.

Well then, by that reasoning...

Reasoning, I might add, totally wasted on your obviously empty brain-bucket. You really actually think like that? Wait 'til puberty strikes.

Freedom,

Orwell's 1984 was about perpetual war, who is pushing for a war we haven't even bothered to define the goals of? That would be the party of ideas...bad ideas

I would say killing him is a little strong. So how about sueing him? That's what Arlene Specter is hoping will be done:

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

Bush

Orwell's 1984 was about...

Get lost, troll.

AAR:

"Never in human history has marriage ever been defined the way you liberals want to make it!"

--Actually, you're quite wrong on this point.

In almost every culture we can find examples of legal, ritualistic, and condoned "marriage" or unions between two men or two women.

Asia has Southern China, where an older man was placed with a younger boy, this was an extension of the social philosophy of being placed with an elder to learn the ways of the world, after a set number of years, the younger boy is placed with a wife to raise a family.

In western Europe the history of same-sex-marriage can be seen in Hellenistic Greece, these marriages were similar in all ways to male-female marriage, even requiring the acceptance of the boy's father.

North America saw the practice of unions between two men, where one man took on the role of "wife" in the relationship, they were regarded as perfectly normal, and in most cases, the "wife" was prized as a very powerful shaman.

etc. etc. etc.

Did you find that part defining marriage in the constitution hiding behind one of those pesky penumbras, yet?

Third Eye Open:

Get lost, troll.

Congress is too damn powerful, and Bush is trying to restore the balance. Of course Congress will be pissed.

The anger of Betty Williams and others seems to be highly selective. Criticism of Russia's actions in Chechnya, China's attacks on Tibet, the killing in Darfur that is supported by China, and North Korea's prison camps are ignored. Also, I doubt we will hear her speak out against abortion. The only actions that get criticized extensively are the one's by America and Israel.

She and her fellow travlers are hypocrites. Criticism of Bush, America, or Israel really generally cost nothing and it is good for press time. To criticize China, Russia, or most Islamic regimes may cost something. In other words, verbal attacks on the US and Israel are profitable and risk free. Finally, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of Iraqi deaths are as a result of the terrorists or the former regime elements and not by the US military.

TEO,

GET A LIFE!! TAKE A HINT! GET A JOB!

NOW GET LOST!!

Jeremiah

B,

The point I think she was trying to make was that Bush's policies of pre-emptive war have left us totally responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians. The sectarian violence, and the influx of foreign fighters to Iraq was directly due to our actions in dismantling the police-structure, and then replacing it with an even more partisan/sectarian element, fomenting the rise of militia violence.

Eyes Closed,

NOT IN MY BOOK!

You want to call "similar", "ritualistic", training, or whatever relationships you can dream up as a marriage, that's YOUR PROBLEM. I don't buy it.

GO somewhere else and solve YOUR PROBLEM -- like France, Canada, or the Netherlands! Go lounge there with you libbie friends and dream up your next social engineering weirdo concept and "experiment" on how to weaken and destroy morals, values, competitiveness, societies, economies, and... entire nations!!!

AAR

"Get lost, troll."

Well, I'm glad to see that intelligent debate is unwelcome and yet infinite repeatings of "get lost" are somehow considered a valuable contribution. You're really encouraging people to listen to what you have to say with your knee-jerk reactionary comments. Keep it up.

Macker,

How exactly is Congress overstepping its bounds?

Let's take a step back to civics class:

1) Congress; passes laws
2) Executive; enforces laws
3) Judicial; interprets laws

Bush has made the judicial branch irrelevant by writing in his own intepretations of the laws that congress passes, stating what he believes to be the intent of the law, and how HE interprets certain portions of the law to be unconstitutional or not.

Secondly, Congress is a rubberstamp for the President, how exactly are they amassing power, when they have consistently given-up power to the Exuctive?

WhoMe,

No worries, man. This guy has very little redeeming value to his opinions, since when it comes right down to it, he eventually just admits that civilians and the future outcome of our present actions have little to no bearing on whether we should advocate flattening anyone we want, just for looking at us funny.

I just ignore these people, and enjoy them patting eachother on the back when their opinions about me converge. LOL

AAR,

Well, history, and thousands of years of tradition seem to disagree with you, Netherlands notwithstanding.

Marriage is a definition which pre-dates Christianity, since the ritual existed from Ancient Egyptian cultures and probably before. The puritan view of world-morality is not the end-all-be-all on the subject, and now that the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no putting it back.

Third Eye Open:

Still here, troll? Get lost.

Eyes Closed,

Looks like your nutty libbie professors teach another version of history than mine. How many married their animals?

Well... your liberal social "ritualistic marriage" experiment is not wanted here! Go to some other country to practice your rituals!!! Go destroy some other nation!

AAR

TEO: I re read your post, to say that the US and its coalition partners are "totally responsible" is inaccurate. The US military did not pick guns or made IEDs and deliberately target civilians. As I said earlier, a case could be made for negligence on the part of the coaltion. If Ms. Williams were to rail against George W. Bush, the coalition, and the "insurgents" she would have credibility. If she would follow this up by calling for more security personnel to be sent to Iraq, then I might actually like her. Such statements would be truly courageous. Diatribes against president Bush or America generally cost nothing and they can be quite profitable. A diatribe against the insurgents could be quite costly. If she is a true peace activist, I would like to hear her say she could Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Amadinejad.

B,

I think it is the expectation that these guys are monsters, we don't expect redeeming values or much of anything good from these barbarians and nut-bags. We do expect a bit more tact and forethought from the "leader of the free world", so when he goes about totally bungling an entire country, leaving the population bare-bummed to attacks and sectarian violence, and still not reacting to up our troop numbers, or even give two hoots about how many people, or for what reason's they are dying, then I think that is something to talk about.

AAR,

I am sorry if the history books you were taught out of are incomplete, but maybe you can get one of them continuing education credits, and go back to learn something.

TEO: My previous reply to you did not show up because of the dreaded blue screen. The Iraq war was launched as a result of numerous UN violations, violations of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war, and Saddam's active support of terrorism which included relations to Al Qaeda fighters. Also, we thought we would find stockpiles of WMD. 30 nations examined this threat and thought it sufficient to assist us in some form. This harldy seems to qualify as preemptive.

To express this another way, Al Qaeda's preemptive attack on the US led to the response by the US and its coalition partners against Al Qaeda, its terrorists allies, and any states who cooperated with Al Qaeda in any way. This includes Iraq.

Had I planned the invasion, I would have brought enough troops to secure the weapons caches, the borders. and the civilian infrastructure. Then I would have allowed the militias, terrorists, and former regime elements to have at one another until they ran out of ammo. Given the fact that we did not do this, it was a mistake to disband the police forces. A case could be made for criminal negligence but the major responsibility belongs to those who are doing the actual deliberate targeting of civilians.

Who ever can bring security to Iraq, be it a strong man or the elected government, will be a hero to Iraqis. We should commit more troops. This will go along to atoning for some of our mistakes. Also, if we can bring security to Iraq we should have a trustworthy ally.

If Ms. Williams wants to criticize George W,Bush, the "insurgents", and Saddam Hussein then she would have some credibility. I doubt we will hear her say she "could kill" Mahmoud Amadinejad, Vladimir Putin, any of the Chineses leaders, Bashar Assad, or any of the leaders of Hezbollah. This might cost her something and the press coverage would not be as much. It would certainl be more risky. Diatriabes against America, Israel, Britian, and to a lesser extent any country who might be allied with the US cost very little and can be quite profitable.

Ms. Williams has very little credibility and what credibilty she did have she forfieted by failing to at least equally criticize the militias or Saddam Hussein.

Rev Scaramonga, you are BORRRRRING.

"Get lost troll"

Why don't you just ignore him if you think he's full of crap? God.

Eyes Closed,

No thanks. I don't need to read the liberal's latest version of "The History and Joy of Perverted and Ritualistic Sex"!

I'm sure you and your leftie friends will keep us informed!!!

AAR

AAR,

I'll let you know when it's released on tape.

TEO: I think therein lies part of the problem we expected more from these people than what we have gotten. I think we expected them to come together and fight off the former regime elements and their terrorist allies. Had they done this, things would probably be much different. In other words, we viewed them as humans who were oppressed by a brutal thug and not as savage monsters.

You write: "We do expect more tact and forethought from the leader of the free world." When the invasion was launched, the American military personnel thought the plan was sufficient and so did our coalition partners who went in with us.

"So when he goes about bungling an entire country, leaving the population bare bummed to attacks and sectarian violence...." There have been a number of mistakes made but to say he has "bungled" an entire country may not be correct. Saddam has been removed and Iraq has a democratically elected government. Security remains a significant problem and we are not sure if the soverign elected Iraqi government will ally with the US or not. It is to early to say for certain if it has been bungled or not. If we can end with a stable ally, then I would say this would be a good thing. Terms like "bungled" make nice talking points for anit-war activists.

"leaving the population bare-bummed to attacks and sectarian violence, and not reacting to up our troop numbers...." I think he along with our coalition partners expected sectarian groups to behave like civilized people. Apparently he and our coaltion allies were wrong. I agree about the troop numbers. The official administration spokespeople have said these are requested by the Commanders on the ground. Unfortunatlely I don't remember any Democrats call for an increase in troops. I suspect we are to afaid we will be falsely labeled as "empirial." The obsession with political correctness has served to hamstring us, in some cases.

"or even give two hoots about how many people, or for what reasons they are dying...." The reasons for the Iraq invasion are spelled out in the Congressional resolution. This has been discussed many times. To suggest he does not care that people are dying I don't think is fair. A case could be made for criminal negligence in not commiting enough troops but the primary responsibility for the dead belongs with the terrorists, former regime elements, and the militias.

"I think that is somehting to talk about." I agree. The context is also something we need to talk about. We need to talk about Saddam Hussein and the massive killing that his people did when they were in power. We need to talk about the Islamic Extremist plan for world domination. We need to talk about the support they are recieving from the Chicoms and the Russians. We need to talk about the oppression that goes on in North Korea. We need to talk about Darfur. There are many things we need to talk about. When Ms. Williams decides she "could kill" Saddam Hussein and the insurgents, at the same time she "could kill" George W. Bush she may have credibility. In focusing entirely on George Bush, she forfiets her credibility. When you say George W. bush does not give "two hoots" you forefiet creditibilty also. If you say he is not a good president, you might have a point. The anti-bush arguments would be far better, if they would stick to facts.

I have been calling for more troops for some time now. As I think we do have a responsibility to these people, commiting more troops would probably make a difference. Ms. Williams should call for more troops, as well. Whoever can bring security to these people will be a hero. If we do it, we could have a trustworthy ally.

Finally, while I think committing more troops at the beginning and even now wold have made and would make an enormous difference, we do not "know" for certain that it would have. The fact is this a very capable and determined enemy.

TEO: A reply to your last post was submitted outside of type key. Oops!!

Sounds like this Aussie is a Randi Rhodes fan.

Wade the difference is that President Bush does not intentionly target women and children for murder or attack.The overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by terrorist that intentionaly target them.The US purpose in Iraq is a noble one to prevent Saddam from filling other mass graves with 300k people or sending more through comercial shredders.To establish a democratic country in the middle east and to stop the spread of radical Islam. Make no mistake the ultimate goal of these killers is to kill you and your family they have stated that fact.You are not safe here because we are seperated by an ocean any longer. You might not be worthy of saving but your family probably are. Also American women would not take well to the cult of Islam and being treated like cattle. Grow up

Wade the difference is that President Bush does not intentionly target women and children for murder or attack.The overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by terrorist that intentionaly target them.The US purpose in Iraq is a noble one to prevent Saddam from filling other mass graves with 300k people or sending more through comercial shredders.To establish a democratic country in the middle east and to stop the spread of radical Islam. Make no mistake the ultimate goal of these killers is to kill you and your family they have stated that fact.You are not safe here because we are seperated by an ocean any longer. You might not be worthy of saving but your family probably are. Also American women would not take well to the cult of Islam and being treated like cattle. Grow up

Jack - I thought the US purpose in Iraq was to get rid of the WMD that were an imminent threat to our nation. At least that is what the President kept saying before we invaded.