Sixty percent of the bodies found in Hussein's mass graves were of women and children, that is all that needs to be said.

If mass graves dont bother you, if the other forty percent of the bodies were men doesnt bother you, the fact that women and children were in these mass graves should bother you. If it doesnt, if you still mourn the death of Hussein and feel it necessary to cry over his departure from this world, then you need to have your head examined.

LtB,

There is certainly no reason for anyone to shed tears over the death of this tyrant - even his surviving children, if they will think sensibly for even a moment, would realise that the very fact of Saddam asserting a right to rule as he did put him outide the pale of human decency...and when you stack up the bodies, it just becomes more clear that there is no downside to Saddam no longer being in power, and while I am opposed to the death penalty on the whole, I recognise that sometimes, in grave circumstances, it is the only possible sanction to impose.

Of course the tyrannophiles, otherwise known as the Left, are having a fit over the permanent disposal of Saddam Hussein.

I once wrote this about the relationship between the Left and their beloved tyrants:

Socialists are inherently parasitic and thus cannot take "no" for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist. If they did so they would wither away and die.

A dictator, on the other hand, does not have to take "no" for answer. Thus socialists are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen-ruled republics.

When they see a dictator in the dock, they see their own hopes and desires go with him.

And when they see a dictator doing a dance at the end of a rope they see themselves perishing with them.

Do I really need to say more?

No, I really don't think so.

Iraqs main WMD is dead.

Many Lefty's are crying the blues over his legal execution by the Iraqi government.

And, his lawyers failed where they tried to get a U.S. Federal Judge to intercede and delay the execution.

Saddam Asks U.S. to Block Execution

"Thinking sensibly" is the operative term, and that is asking a lot from people who worship Castro and cry over the likes of Abu Jamal. Their ability to think sensibly ended the day Bush first took presidential office.

I fully expect the usual suspects to remind everyone that Saddam provided free health-care and kept the trains running on time, as if his horrifying crimes could be rectified by distributing polio vaccinations in Mosul. Their constant defense of savages with the benign statement of "yeah he was cruel, BUT..." always turns my stomach.

Was it worth it?

3,000 American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, civil war, untold Iraqi deaths, for one worthless piece of crap?

Unbelievable.

I went the first time, and I'd go tommorrow, if they'd sign me tsmith! Guess it just depends on what's important to you for your life!!!

Correction tsmith, I got ahead of my fingers there! I was trained & waiting to go the first time. To bad they pulled the plug before finishing the job then.

Very, very strange people out there...

Mark, That is an understatement.

When I was reading DU earlier this evening, there was even talk of "storming the White House" to depose Bush (shrub, as they disrespectfully call him) and instilling their government.

Showing they don't read beyond headlines, "So, if Iraq's a sovereign nation ("That means you have sovereignty!" - GWB) . . .
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 10:31 PM
Why did a U.S. district judge have jurisdiction?

Just asking . . ."

Did they miss it was a feeble attempt by lefty attorneys to delay the execution and was denied?

terrible news
Aside from my resistance to the death penalty, I regret this because he could have testified against both of the bushes and all the other creeps who have dragged this country into the mud with their onanistic fantasies of empire.

Scary, those people are allowed to vote too.

I believe the correct answer is: No, Saddam's life is not worth the life of a single American.

Osama is the one who did it.

Lew,

I understand Diebold is working on ways to get the voting machines to detect if you've watched Olberman more than twice in the past year...if a positive read is made, then the vote is counted twice for a Republican.

:o)

ts,

I'm with bearman - it is worth it. Your problem is that you're hung up on deaths, and not thinking about the fact that we all die, but that inhumanity must always be stopped. We believers, you see, have a disdain for death - we will never, ever assert that death, or the fear of it, or the numbers who might die, should prevent us from doing the right thing. 100 years from now, all the people who have died in this war would be dead anyways...but if by their deaths today they secure an Iraq - and a larger Arab/Moslem world - which lives decently without the threat of terrorism or Islamo-fascist tyranny, then the blood has been well spent...much better spent than had we cravenly walled ourselves in on 9/12 and left the world to suffer under the tyrants.

ts,

I'm still of the opinion that bin Laden is a grease spot in the Tora Bora...it would be just too easy for him to hold up a recent newspaper for a video camera. But, if he is alive, and we capture him, then he'll meet justice...probably in the form of hanging (though I guess it might be a firing squad...).

3,000 American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, civil war, untold Iraqi deaths, for one worthless piece of crap?Unbelievable.

One of those intangibles that we will never really be able to ascertain. I suppose its something along the lines of all the liberal whining that Bush should have done something about OBL before 911 occurred.

At the end of WWII, how many people do you think regretted not killing Hitler during his rise to power? Of course, they had six years of war and 50 million corpes to reflect upon as they considered their lack of resolve.

So what do you think, take out Ahmadinejad and destroy Iran's nuclear sites or wait it out? Tough choice isnt it? You want to be the one held responsible for what happens either way?

I believe the correct answer is: No, Saddam's life is not worth the life of a single American.
Osama is the one who did it.

We know that after the fact, convenient for us isnt it?

Now all we have to do is figure out whether Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Chavez or any other psycho out there is going to slaughter a bunch of us or not.

My ESP isnt exactly accurate, how about yours?

YOu try to make the equation seem simple "3,000 lives vs one life"

Unfortunately, it ISN'T that simple. DO you know how many people Saddam's regime was killin, maiming, raping and torturing every day? How many died in the iran Iraq war? How many died when he invaded Kuwait? Why do THOSE people not fit into your "Grisly equation"? Or do they just not count because they aren't the "RIght sort of people?" YOu make me sick.

We all can sit here and say whether it was worth it or not, as we see fit. I am of the camp that yes, it was well worth it.

Saddam's execution isn't the end of this matter, maybe the start of the Iraqis seeing they have little to fear and even more of them standing against terrorists.

Was it worth it? Look at the overall celebrations from common Iraqis. Look at the retention rate of our troops and how many voluntarily return to finish the fight. My guess is they feel it was worth it too.

Osama, dead or alive, has been reduced to complete ineffectiveness. I think he is already dead, but if he isn't, he is hiding out in a cave somewhere with little contact with his minions.

Still, the smokescreen of "where is Osama," being bantered by the left to counter this significant step in the War on Terror in Iraq, begs the same question. Will it be worth it?

I imagine the left would not be satisified with his death either and would just find someone else to appoint as their mark for "yeah, but what about ...."

Let me ask in return, "is it worth it desiring your country to lose to terror to satisfy your BDS?"

Remember our intervention in the Balkans in the 90's which BTW, I supported at the time? The overriding, single reason to go in UNILATERALLY was the "ethnic cleansing" that was being perpetrated. It was an idealism of saving a helpless people from a brutal murderer. There could be no higher calling according to the Clinton administration.

Fine...

About 7-8 thousand bodies total were uncovered from mass graves in Kosevo and Bosnia, not all attributted to Milosevic. This was a victory. So far, over 400 thousand bodies have been unearthed (and counting) from mass graves in Iraq and this is now a non issue. Actually, It is completely ignored by the liberals of today.

The left even goes as far as touting that the Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power!

F'in Hipocrites!

3,000 American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, civil war, untold Iraqi deaths, for one worthless piece of crap?

When history makes its judgement, ts, and not the DBM, you may be the "worthless piece of crap" who benefitted from all of this. Of course, a parrot such as yourself won't want to hear it, because you're blinded and deafened by hate for your country and for those who protect your right to be a "worthless piece of crap.

From here on out, your new name is WPOC.

Hmm, WPOC is our local country station, and I like most country music. Oh well, it's still ts' new name...

WPoC,

I'm listening to one of the people who helped uncover mass graves in Iraq. Maybe you should listend/read what Saddam did to so many people--rape, torture, burying women and children alive, throwing handcuffed men off of buildings, etc.

Maybe his capture and execution was insignificant to a WPoC such as yourself, but it mattered to a lot of people personally affected by it. Inclucing many of our finest men and women who put on the uniform, who've lost comrades in this struggle.

And all you can come up with is Osama is the one who did it.

How pathetically shallow...

I'm listening to them speculate on what they're going to do with Saddam's body. According to his religion, the body should be buried within 24 hours of death.

Any chance on that body being set afire and hung from that bridge in Fallujah? Just kidding...

Leslie is absolutely correct. Liberals are inherently dictators. They are correct and cannot be argued with. They feel that their opinion is the only one that matters. They see Saddam hanging is a threat to their way of thinking. Bush hanging, well that would be ok. See how that works? Capital Punishment is only good if you disaggree with liberals.

Excellent news! The monster you created has been destroyed. (Ed. Note: CO is probably one of those who think that Saddam was a US client - as we know, Saddam was a client of the Soviets and the French...but the fact that so many leftists believe Saddam a US client just shows how unrealistic they are...facts just don't matter to the left).

I believe the correct answer is: No, Saddam's life is not worth the life of a single American.

Osama is the one who did it.

Posted by: tsmith at December 30, 2006 03:11 AM

That would be your PERSONAL answer tsmith! You see, that's the difference between you & I. I wouldn't think twice about stepping in front of a bus to save your child, nor would I even consider it before taking a bullet for Bill BJ Clinton(even though I didn't vote for him). There are TALKERS(you) & there are WALKERS(me)! We feel compassion, anger, hurt, pain etc., and then nothing stands in our way as we do something about it. You feel all those things above & go home and go to sleep(because you can't do anything about it anyways). Walkers & Talkers!!!

CO, your a fool! I won't sit here and blame Canada. I know too many intelligent Canadians! But, it truly is your right to be a fool, so enjoy your life, I'm sure most of it is handed to you by someone else.

Nice spin, bearman. Frankly I don't understand what you're saying. Tortured logic, to say the least.

Look, this is ridiculous. Saddam was an evil man and deserved to die but Osama bin Laden is the one responsible for slaughtering 3000 innocent Americans (and we knew that immediately after 9/11, so I don't see how you can say that "hindsight is 20/20"). Even if Saddam was a danger (which he was not), we needed to focus first on those who actually DID attack our country, not some other people who might... someday.

Does anyone want to own up to the fact that Saddam, like most dictators throughout the region after the fall of Istanbul as a world power, was a Western-backed tyrannt who we supplied with material and intelligence in order to fight Communist expansion?

Oh...didn't think so.

Excellent news! The monster you created has been destroyed.

Lets suppose for a moment that your snarky and...do I detect a hint of sadness in your post...faintly slanderous statement were correct, would it not be encumbent upon us to destroy the monster we created?

Either way, your comment is typical; no real joy whatsoever in the demise of one the worlds most heinous criminals, only an all too evident contempt for the United States.

Lefties are lefties everywhere, they support the killers and vilify the victims.

Lefties are lefties everywhere, they support the killers and vilify the victims.

Posted by: Lose the Bongos at December 30, 2006 11:23 AM

Are you serious? What part of excellent news don't you understand?

Oh you actually meant that? Sorry, perhaps it was the following statement about Saddam being "our" monster that clouded my thought process.

Maybe if you had expounded a bit more on Hussein himself, something like 'this is justice for all the children he slaughtered' or 'hopefully his death will contribute something positive to the difficult situation in Iraq' rather than using the occasion to yet again disparage the United States, I would have taken more notice.

And yes, I was serious.

Che is a cult hero, Castro is the dream-guest for all the best liberal parties, Chavez is lauded for his jackassian antics, Mumia gets his own street in Paris and the well-fed terrorists at Gitmo got more Christmas cards than the American soldiers guarding them.

"Excellent news! The monster you created has been destroyed" Posted by CO

OK...now I've had it. My patience has run thin. I'll admit it...Corn is right!

These kooks don't deserve a response.
We give them every opportunity at redemption and all they spew is crap.

We've got Stanielle Steel trying to be funny with his childish antics regarding Al's husband, which is dispicable...you ahole!!

We've got CO which stands for lobotaomy in Chinese and the rest of these freaks that try to portray themselves as wanting a real debate...well debate this (middle finger)!

When you don't have enough decency or compassion to shut the F*#k up for just one minute to allow a fellow human to grieve, it shows just how small you really are....dispicable...pukes!

LtB: "So what do you think, take out Ahmadinejad and destroy Iran's nuclear sites or wait it out? Tough choice isnt it? You want to be the one held responsible for what happens either way?"

Although the question you pose is far too simply framed, it does boil down to many tough choices. In the end I wish I had more confidence in the ones currently charged with the responsibility of making them.

As for Saddam, I shed no tears. And while he had already been reduced to political irrelevance, I hope his death affords more closure for the survivors of his countless victims than it does a rallying cry for those who might consider him some kind of martyr.

My tears are reserved for the sacrifices incurred by so many in the difficult and seriously bungled process of the regime change induced to effect Saddam's demise. My prayers go out to them, and to the desire that some long-lasting good will emerge from the turmoil.

My tears are reserved for the sacrifices incurred by so many in the difficult and seriously bungled process of the regime change induced to effect Saddam's demise. My prayers go out to them, and to the desire that some long-lasting good will emerge from the turmoil.

Posted by: Ricorun at December 30, 2006 12:30 PM

Amen to that Ricorun. The things that really matter seem to get lost in all the rhetoric.

Mark, like you I am against the death penalty and therefore am very conflicted today about saddams execution. I know that saddam caused more death, sorrow and misery to more people than almost anyone in history. I also know that it was an impossible situation, because even if given a life sentence, many would have feared his possible return to power. However, today my honest feelings are that I feel diminished as a human being today because of his execution. The death watch before hand and then the video of him being executed, left me sorrowful. I know his death gives many Iraqi's closure and some peace. As a christian, I pray for the soul of his victims and for saddams soul. As a fellow sinner, I believe there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us. I am not making excuses for saddam since out of his own choices and free will, he chose to kill and torture without mercy. However, I cannot forget that saddam was a child of God and a brother, even though he may have forgotten this a long time ago. I hope in his heart at some level he was sorry for what he had done and asked forgiveness from God. I pray and hope that God has mercy on his soul and those of whom he had killed. I do not wish anyone to final damnation. As President Bush had stated of yassar arafat, God rest his soul.

james,

I'm about on the same page, but I regretfully believe that Saddam's execution was the only possible punishment he could receive. It isn't that executing him gives actual justice - one just execution cannot provide justice for hundreds of thousands of unjust murders - but that there was no way or place to confine him which would (a) be thought of as just by the Iraqi people, (b) ensure that he is never at liberty again and (c) make Saddam pay a price which might cause his repentence.

I, like you, hope that at the end - even if it was just as the rope was tightening - he realised what a horrific litanty of sin his life had been. All human beings must die, and all of us are fallen and can only attain redemption by a power outside ourselves - literally, there but for the grace of God go any of us. Who can say that if we weren't raised up in Saddam's circumstances that we definitely wouldn't become a brute? On the other hand, very many people were raised up in Saddam's circumstances and yet retained their humanity.

Ricorun,

What can be more good than that a man who was the epitome of the unjust tyrant should be justly dealt with? You're not giving enough credit for what we have already done, nor the hope it offers for the future.

Hey, no fair. (Ed. Note: rather pathetic attempt at leftwing humor deleted in the interests of, well, keeping the blog from looking stupid)

I doubt you will find any fans of Saddam Hussein here.

As I said in an earlier thread as soon as I head about this... good riddance to bad rubbish.

Then again, it should be enough for us to have the news and not have the corpse pictures posted on the internet... it interferes with my ability to eat and enjoy lunch...

At least we can say that with the tyrant and his equally EVIL sons gone, there will be NO MORE YOUNG GIRLS AND CHILDREN DRAGGED OUT OF CLASSROOMS
AND RAPED BEFORE THE EYES OF OTHER CHILDREN. OF COURSE, IT 'WILL CONTINUE IN PLACES LIKE DARFAR AND SOMOLIA-THANKS TO THE INEPTNESS OF THE "U.N. PEACEKEEPING FORCES AND THE REIGN OF KOFIE ANNAN-WHO DO/DID NOTHING TO KEEP THIS FROM OCCURRING".

SAY WHAT YOU WANT, THE HUMAN RACE IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE DESPOTS, WHO HAVE CAUSED SUCH PAIN AND
SUFFERING TO THOSE WHO SURVIVED THEIR LOVED ONES BEING KILLED, MAIMED, RAPED BY THE LIKES OF THE "DEVILS-SADDAM AND SONS----AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW THEIR SAME DEMISE-THANKS TO OUR BRAVE FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND OUR BRAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, WHO HAD THE GUTS TO GET THIS WAR ON TERRORISM PULLED INTO FOCUS--WHERE OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS, JUST LET IT FLOURISH AND SPREAD.
THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS WAS "ON OUR OWN LAND ON 9/11".

Instead of the rhetoric of the Leftists who have enabled this reign of terrorism and been wishy washy on stepping up to the plate(No Matter What area the Terrorists join in to kill Americans, or others in the nearby areas) to eradicate this plague on society, politicizing the present Adm's
EACH and EVERY MOVE, it would be a good time, to
act somewhat United, and eradicate this continued plague. As someone said previous, "ONE MORE DOWN,
MANY TO GO-COMING TO A PLACE NEAR YOU AND YOURS'...

Saddam Hussein is Dead!!

He probably called on Muhammed, However, he is now answering to Almighty God!!

Praise be to God, this is an answer to prayer, for all the families he brutally and relentlessly tortured!!

P.S. Another answer to prayer - Nice to see the demon stanley banned!

Jeremiah

I would watch the execution if televised. I want to witness the death of perhaps one of the cruelest and most diabolical dictators.

Would any reasonable person argue about the inhumanity of an execution if it was Hitler? I don't think so.

The world is a better place without Saddam.

Saddam is dead, and nothing will change because of it. The idea of the nation of Iraq is a bad one: as I have mentioned previously. Saddam's methods held Iraq together, little else has worked; that goes to show Iraq is an ill conceived idea. U.S. troops will leave "Iraq" one day, and then the inhabitants can get on with making their own political settlement. Every dollar, and drop of blood expended since Saddam's government was toppled has been for nothing.

Saddam is most likely in a very warm place, where he can recognize his old buddies Arafat and Zarqawi. Too bad he can't tell us if he sees Bin Laden down there.

Vlad, you took the words out of my mouth, or in this case, fingers. The left had no problem with a president who lacked combat experience launching a "unilateral" war against a country that "never attacked us", when said president was named Clinton. I guess they were for these things before they were against them. It's also interesting how the left can call a war "unilateral" when our coalition had over 30 members, which was (as I've recently learned) more than we had in the Korean War. But then, the left also said that Mr. Bill's affair with Monica was "private", even though it took place in an office during working hours, so they've already shown a willingness to lie by redefining words.

When you look at Mr. Bill's sole reason for attacking Serbia, the humanitarian reaction against Milosevic's treatment of the Kosovars, and compare it with Saddam's treatment of Iraqis of all stripes, you find that Saddam produced a pile of dead bodies larger than Milosevic could dream of. Yep, [censored]ing hypocrits.

So Saddam was executed for killing 148 people. What we should do with another world leader that is responsible for the unprovoked killing of, by his own estimate (which is no doubt a conservative one), 35,000 + Iraqis and close to 3,000 Americans? (It’s all a part of the culture of life, right?) Impeachment would be a good place to start.

Before you delete or complain about this posting, please think about (1) your own hypocrisy and (2) how afraid neo-cons seem to be when someone challenges that hypocrisy.

So Saddam was executed for killing 148 people. What we should do with another world leader that is responsible for the unprovoked killing of, by his own estimate (which is no doubt a conservative one), 35,000 + Iraqis and close to 3,000 Americans? Yes, none other than George W. Bush. (It’s all a part of the culture of life, right?) Impeachment would be a good place to start.

Before you delete or complain about this posting, please think about (1) your own hypocrisy and (2) how afraid neo-cons seem to be when someone challenges that hypocrisy.

Mark: "What can be more good than that a man who was the epitome of the unjust tyrant should be justly dealt with?"

Like I said, I shed no tears for Saddam. And as you said in a previous comment, justice is ultimately in the hands of God, Who's opinion we cannot speak with certainty (no matter how sincerely we wish we could). But on a more earthly realm, whether or not Saddam's sentence was justly dealt according to my perception or yours matters far less than how it is perceived by the people of Iraq. For one thing, he was tried and sentenced for a relatively minor incident in his gruesome panoply of horrors. The remainder will now never be aired the way they would have been had he been tried for them. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But in the end I hope that what ultimately happened (and didn't) provides enough closure for the survivors of the rest of his victims. For another, I hope that his execution doesn't raise him to the level of martyr in anyone's eyes, and motivates them to kill in his name. He doesn't deserve that kind of legacy, IMHO.

You're not giving enough credit for what we have already done, nor the hope it offers for the future.

Perhaps you need to provide a few details on what we have already done from the perspective of the hope it offers for the future. Things have certainly changed since Saddam was retrieved from his spider hole, but it seems to me that it requires a great deal of selective perception to call it real progress. And I suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that most of the people responsible for making the decisions three years ago are still making them now. Then again, now that Rumsfeld is gone and Abizaid and Casey soon will be, things will change. But I think the problem goes deeper than them.

I also appreciate the fact that Bush has finally realized that his "stay the course" strategy wasn't working very well, while at the same time bringing the American military close to the breaking point (just about every knowledgeable observer appears to agree on those issues). The question now becomes whether he, as the ultimate decider, has the intellectual and psychological facility to effectively do something about it. On that score I am both profoundly hopeful and profoundly skeptical.

I will admit that my skepticism has always been there, but I have always been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. My criticisms have been more in the way of "where's the beef?" than anything else (which is to say that I have pointed out that the claims were not reflected in the apparent results). But my skepticism has deepened and grown more visceral in recent months as Bush changed his story from "We are winning" to "we are not winning, but not losing either"; as he radically switched his allegiance to Rumsfeld; as he switched his story from "We have a plan" to the present two-month period of obviously searching for one; as he went from claiming that he listened most intently to the commanders on the ground to rejecting their recommendations as embodied in the Pentagon report. In short, it has become exceedingly apparent to me that all those corners we were repeatedly told we were turning have resulted in a circular trajectory. And in the process his credibility has swirled down the toilet. So either we're going to get increasingly dizzy or we need to clear the plumbing.

Unless you are a Kurd, Iranian or from Kuwait who the hell cares. His hanging is merely right wing theater to distract the nation away from Neocon's incompetent failures in getting Bin Laden.

I am just disappointed I am so far unable to find a video that actually shows him dropping through the trap door. I only seen up to the point where they slip the noose around his neck. If you know whrere I can find it, post it.

So ok, I am a bit morbid.

Ric

"Perhaps you need to provide a few details on what we have already done from the perspective of the hope it offers for the future"

Firstly. It would take more time and web space that is available to list the positives...but I'll list number one. We haven't been hit on the homeland since 911 and if this isn't enough for starters, I could go on. Doesn't this give you hope, or are you hoping we're hit again...which is it?

"bringing the American military close to the breaking point (just about every knowledgeable observer appears to agree on those issues)."

Did you believe the "observers" when they all said Saddam had WMD's? This is the purest form of liberal cherry picking and always when it is convenient.

Next. Remember Kosovo? We're still there fighting radicals alongside Nato Peacekeepers and if you'll recall, your wonderful Pres. Slick Willy said this: "We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century, with catastrophic results….[We are acting] so that future generations of Americans do not have to cross the Atlantic to fight another terrible war…. Our stand in Kosovo…is a strategic imperative." I agreed with that war, and I'm 50%Serbian...go figure.

So it's OK for your beloved, but not any other President...gimme a break! So look, Ricorun, turn that visceral touchy feel stuff into support for our troops and the President so our guys in the battlefield will "feel" the love and support they truly deserve....yeech...I hate that touchy feely crap!

Since this blog is about President Bush and the Left seems to want to make Sadaam's death a referendum on Bush, let's take a look at the difference between Bush and their beloved hero Clinton. Bush as opposed to Clinton was willing to take chances and make the hard decisions. The left thinks that Sadaam was a tool of the West, and maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. We can debate that until we are blue in the face. What we do know about Sadaam was that he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He went to war with Iran, and Kuwait, and was a general menace to most of the middle east. The other thing that we know about Sadaam is that at one time he had WMD. Most Democrats believed it including Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy. It was reported to be true by our CIA, the French, German, British, and Russian intelligence agencies. While Clinton avoided most conflicts, and hard decisions during the eight years of his administration, including basically ignoring the attacks on the WTC, the Kobar towers, the embassy attacks and the attack on the Cole, which basically set up the atmosphere that allowed 9-11 to happen, Bush knew that to protect the American people and way of life, he would have to make some very hard choices. He attacked Afghanistan, knowing that the USSR had bogged down there. He knew that Saddam would have to be confronted, and he also knew that he could now allow Saddam to continue to develop WMD. Saddam was warned time after time. If Bush had pulled a Clinton, and had done nothing, and Saddam had had WMD, given them to terrorists, and an attack had occurred, then, could you imagine the kind of squawking, that the left would have involved themselves in? I for one am glad we have a president who will engage in making hard choices. The American people should expect nothing less. And, as for Saddam, am I glad he's dead? You are damned right.

There now. It's done. I hope you guys feel better. Revel in it. Wallow and rejoice. Lay your pretty heads on your pillow and sleep like babies. I'm glad you feel better.

I don't. BFD.

Tomorrow more Americans and more innocent Iraqi's will be killed. Nothing has changed. In the next months we will pour more gasoline onto the fire.

We sit on pins and needles waiting and waiting for the "NEW" plan. Our leaders said to the public they spent a whole 3 hours "hammerin" out the details.

In the mean time the UAE is starting to shift from the dollar to the euro. Iran is starting to buy euros. Our ecomomy is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Where is the action and implementation of our "energy plan"?

We (the USA) finally admit that global warming is affecting polar bears. Ice shelfs are breaking off.

And Saddam Hussein is dead.

As long as your happy.

Its all getting better now, this was BIG progress.

Baloney.

Keep feeding on death you vultures.

The lib mantra is why do we pay attention to the justice of Saddam, when Osama is still on the loose. That is like saying, why do we pay attention to big ear Obama and her Thighness Hillary Rotten, when Osama is still on the loose. Libs do not practice the theory of mutually exclusive ideas.

Feel better now, raker? Did it help to get all that woe off your chest?

All of your points were titillating, though I must admit the one about the economy teetering on the brink of collapse was a hoot; Im thinking that economics and stock market valuation isnt your strong suit.

BTW, glaciers once covered a large part of the earth...Im wondering if the mammoths caused them to recede to their present dimensions? LOL!

Invest all you want in your bull market. I would recommend easing your debt. Or maybe you did not understand "teetering".

This is what happens when you run trade and fiscal deficits. Countries start to lose confidence in your currency. Over the last few years we have seen a large number of central banks announce they will diversify away from the dollar -- usually to add the euro to their reserves. OPEC, Russia, China, South Korea, Iran, and Venezueala are all in this camp. Now we can add the UAE to the "we like euros as much as the dollar" camp.

The United Arab Emirates will convert 8 percent of its foreign-exchange reserves to euros from dollars before September after the U.S. currency slumped this year, the country's central bank governor said.

The U.A.E. has started ``in a limited way'' to sell part of its dollar reserves, Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said in an interview in Abu Dhabi on Dec. 24. ``We will accumulate euros each time the market appears to dip,'' as part of a plan to expand the country's holding of euros to 10 percent of the total from 2 percent today, he said.

The Gulf state is among oil producers including Iran, Venezuela and Indonesia, looking to shift their currency reserves into euros or sell their oil, which is currently priced in dollars, in the 12-nation currency. The total value of the U.A.E.'s current reserves is $24.9 billion, 98 percent in dollars and 2 percent in euros, al-Suwaidi said.

Standard economic thinking would argue the US trade deficit should lead to a dollar correction. The problem is when a large number of people start to sell dollars. Right now there is a giant international game of chicken going on -- no one wants to be the one who starts a dollar drop, but no one wants to see the value of their reserves decrease either. It's a most difficult game that can lead to sudden and painful currency moves.

arcman, by stating that Clinton ignored the attacks on the WTC & the embassies, you conveniently ignore, as most conservatives now do, that as Clinton attempted to track down bin laden with a CIA task force & bombings in Afghanistan, conservatives were screaming to high heaven about how he was attempting to distract the county from Monica Lewinsky. Moreover, assuming that the “atmosphere” was ripe for a 9-11 type event when Clinton left office, what’s that say about Bush, who proceeded to take more vacation time between Jan. 01 and Sept. 01 than any president in history? What’s that say about Bush, who ignored the infamous memo “bin laden determined to attack inside u.s.” and instead, desperately tried to convince the county he was a cowboy while lounging in Crawford? If the “atmosphere” was so ripe for a 9-11 type event, why didn’t he do anything? Answer – because Bush didn’t see bin laden as a threat, which proved to be a costly miscalculation, one that Bush bears a significant amount of responsibility for.

Now as far as Sadaam being hanged.....
Na Na Na Na,
Na Na Na Na,
Hey Hey Hey,
Good Bye!

Of course, for eight months Bush was allowed to consider a memo which said "sometime somewhere some guy named Bin Laden might try to attack us" which just happens to be the exact type of memo we have been seeing for decades. Eight months, not eight years.

There is blame enough for all, but eight years of enduring attacks while your only response is to bomb a few tents in the desert belongs solely to Clinton. The liberal refrain of "Why havent you caught Bin Laden" can be thrown right back at them, why didnt YOU catch him after eight years? At least Bush is trying.

Where did you steal that synopsis from, raker, its certainly not your insight.

The U.S. has the worlds most diversified economy and its GDP is measured in trillions, as in ten trillion; only a fool would completely shed holdings in currency that represents such a large output. Diversification in economy as well as investment is smart, it allows you greater flexibility and tolerance for market fluctuations.

You even provided a sterling example: "We will accumulate euros each time the market appears to dip, as part of a plan to expand the country's holding of euros to 10 percent of the total from 2 percent today", he said.

This makes good economic sense, notice he didnt say they would drop all dollars or that they would accumulate euros during high-cost currency periods. And why havent these countries bought euros in the past, because the euro has been relatively volatile since its inception and only lately has managed to stabilize? Its the way the market works 101.

Iran and the UAE are starting to buy euros and we should begin preparing for bread-lines and a new dust bowl diaspora...ok then. Teetering huh? You go ahead and sell any stock you might have, buy gold and stash it away under a mattress, Ill work this..uh..'teetering' market and watch my portfolio bulge.

Though now that I think about it, perhaps global warming caused the desire for euros as well as the broken ice-shelf...where DID all those glaciers go from the last ice-age? Damn those mammoths!

If you think he was killed 'Only' for killing 148 people, than go ahead and put your head back under the rock> Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of deaths, and to even begin to try to compare unintentional deaths from US actions to that is ghoulish beyond all measure. Moreover, to assign the US responsibility fot Jihadists sawing off people's heads, executing schoolchildren and blowing up mosques is also ghoulish. We would have to have the deaths we have right now for 100 years to even approach Saddam's yearly death rate.

And that doesn't even include the rape rooms, the torture chambers. .

If you want to try to make moral equivalency, then you are well and truly lost in the wilderness.

arcman, by stating that Clinton ignored the attacks on the WTC & the embassies, you conveniently ignore, as most conservatives now do, that as Clinton attempted to track down bin laden with a CIA task force & bombings in Afghanistan, conservatives were screaming to high heaven about how he was attempting to distract the county from Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by M. Johnson

Hey Johnson, are you really that enamored by the "boy wonder" to really believe that drivel that you just posted. While part of it is true, he did have a task force looking for Bin Laden, his cronies made sure that time after time, said task force was hamstrung from doing it's job. And if Mr Clinton had wanted to get Bin Laden, he had numerous times that he could have done. Clinton was the consumate politician, one who never did anything without looking at the polls. While President Bush isn't perfect, and one of his flaws seem to be a sense of stubbornness, at least he responded to the threats that were out there. Get off the wacky weed, you moron.

"our economy is on the brink of collapse"...Liberals really do live in an alternate reality. Raker13, please, do your family a favor and get some psychotherapy. I am sure you bother them much more than you could ever bother any of b4b readers.

Every dollar, and drop of blood expended since Saddam's government was toppled has been for nothing.

Glad you could clear that up for us, Tommie. This bit of rhetoric has never been introduced here. Well, maybe once or twice--or a million times. Are you an idiot? Yes...

Dear raker13,

You may want to mention that global warming crap to your new therapist too. I think the correct diagnosis would be paranoia, but I will leave that up to the professionals. BTW, I just did my year end accounting only to discover that my husband and I made over 400k this year. Not too bad for 2 kids whose parents immigrated to the US with only the clothes on their backs. And we didnt even have a single Halliburton contract. I must hurry now and get to the liquor store. I will drive my BMW at warp speed to buy champagne for this evening. I want to get there before the economy collapses. Thanks for the tip.

Happy New Year,

Mermaid

Ok, you got me. BFD.

This time I must quote Larry Beinhart:

"The Republican minority won't roll over and die. The right-wing propaganda and spin industry won't pack it in. The rich people, corporations and institutions who benefit from such policies aren't going to stop.

We are currently having something of a boom, at least in the financial markets.

Obviously, it has not been created by new industries, investment in infrastructure, or a widening of the middle class. Where, then, is the money coming from? It seems obvious to me that it has been created primarily by hollowing out our assets. Both public and private."

Where is the mainstream school of economists who should be explaining that? Warning of its dangers? Offering alternatives?

Where are the academic departments and think tanks to house them and to publicize their views? Where are the formulas, slogans, catch-phrases and sound bites to make them easily understood and memorable?"

The well is drying up. We cannot print money fast enough. We are caught in the quandry of needed interest rate increases to prop the dollar against inflation. Larry pinpoints it. We ARE hollowing out our assets.

As more and more dollars are converted to euros, the intrest rate must be increased to keep the dollar stable. As the intrest rate increases, more and more buyers are unable to carry the rate. This will reflect poorly on our ecomomy. Its all OK though, rising gas prices will keep inflation in check as more people will spend their money on fuel.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Your portfolio may reflect the current hollow boom. Wait until the bottom drops out.

I for one will not be happy to say I told you so.

where DID all those glaciers go from the last ice-age? Damn those mammoths!

Posted by: 4th Light Horse at December 31, 2006

Careful, Horse, before you start talking about glaciers, mammoths, etc., you better check it out with Mark, Jeremiah, et al. I think they may have a problem with all that scientific stuff.

The Mammoths would have been fine if they would have given up their SUV's - Oh wait.

"BTW, glaciers once covered a large part of the earth...Im wondering if the mammoths caused them to recede to their present dimensions? LOL!"

With Mammoth flatulants...of course...LOL!

navydad,
I think the first thing you have to understand is that I voted for W -- twice. Granted, I was much more comfortable with my vote the first time than the second time. The second time it had far more to do with my distaste for Kerry than my regard for Bush. It might interest you to know that I also voted for W's dad, as well as Reagan -- again twice each. Anyway, the fact is that your attempt to characterize me as some kind of libbie moonbat is inaccurate. It reveals more about your own inclination to conflate unrelated issues into some kind of monolithic "with me or against me" attitude than anything I said. I am genuinely concerned about the situation in Iraq, how it affects our military readiness, our economy, and above all, our ability to effectively address other strategic considerations both in the region and elsewhere. And I reserve my right as a member of the electorate to question any policy issue as thoughtfully and as knowledgeably as I can. I hope you do the same. That's what democracy is all about, don't you think?

With regard to your first point, the one about "not getting hit on the homeland since 911": in what sense do you attribute that to anything that has happened in Iraq? You claim that's the best evidence you have to offer, and should be sufficient. But I don't understand the connection. Are you saying that by supplying terrorists with American targets in Iraq they are somehow less motivated to come over to the US? Doesn't that argument strike you as just a little specious? Perhaps a bus ticket is cheaper than a plane ticket, but I doubt that's the reason. It seems to me that the reason we haven't been hit on our own soil is a result of effective intelligence and law enforcement activities. I think you can make a strong argument that those intelligence and law enforcement activities have been very effective. And it is something the Bush administration has a right to be proud of. But you can't use that success to justify our military presence in Iraq. And you certainly can't use it as evidence that things are improving in Iraq. That's ridiculous. It is the worst kind of conflation.

And by the way, I am not attempting to address the question of whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The fact is, we're there. The question I addressed is whether or not things are improving in Iraq. Those are two completely different questions, and should not be confused. Any attempt to conflate the two into one is just wrong.

On to your second point:
"Did you believe the "observers" when they all said Saddam had WMD's? This is the purest form of liberal cherry picking and always when it is convenient."

Again, how does this question bear on whether or not the situation in Iraq is improving? For the record, though, it is absolutely ludicrous to equate what "knowledgeable observers" know about our own military in comparison with what a completely different set of "knowledgeable observers" knew about Saddam's military. The two are not even close to the same. And you accuse ME of cherry-picking for convenience? Come on.

Also since you asked (even though it has nothing to do with the topic), I did accept the intelligence assessment that Saddam probably did have at least chemical and biological weapons, and if allowed free reign he would have attempted to develop a nuclear weapon as well. I don't think there's much doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was a dangerous, ruthless individual. But again, what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

On to your third point:
"Remember Kosovo? We're still there fighting radicals alongside Nato Peacekeepers..."

Why bring up Kosovo? How does that apply to the question of whether or not things are improving in Iraq? Again it appears that you are conflating issues related to the decisions to get involved in military conflict with issues related to how to make the result a success. They're two completely different questions.

Finally, as to you taking me to task by arguing my "visceral" comment was "touchy feely", perhaps it was a little over the top. The fact is, I'm not a particularly visceral kind of guy. My wording was intended more as a literary device to allude to Bush's widely reported decision-making style -- which is illustrated by this quote: "White House aides describe a president who gathers a small circle of trusted advisers, listens to brief debates and then offers swift, gut-based solutions to problems." Even his wife concurs with that characterization. My point was that his gut has failed him. But go ahead and tell me how you felt when Bush changed his story from "We are winning" to "we are not winning, but not losing either"; when he radically switched his allegiance to Rumsfeld; when he switched his story from "We have a plan" to the present two-month period of obviously searching for one; when he went from claiming that he listened most intently to the commanders on the ground to rejecting their recommendations as embodied in the Pentagon report. More specifically, how do you think all those sudden reversals have affected his credibility with the general public?

And no, I don't equate support of the president with support for the troops. I support the troops unquestioningly. Always have, always will. By the way, both my siblings were career military, though both are retired now. I attempted to enlist back in the Viet Nam days, but they wouldn't take me -- I have very poor vision. The president, on the other hand, has to earn my support -- and do so on a case-by-case basis. I refuse to be a mindless follower. IMO, that's the only way a democracy can thrive. So to conflate the two (support for the troops with support for the president) strikes me as a very "touchy feely" attitude. It might even be dangerous.

R

Point taken. Although a bit long winded and defensive.

However, if you could only listen to yourself in the conspiracy tone that you portray, you'd say the exact same thing. Sentence after sentence is accusitory and yes, visceral towards our President.

By saying "Even his wife concurs with that characterization"...when? I'd like to see the quote and if it's proven that she said it about his decisions for the war, I'll stand corrected, if not provided, well it's just another liberal talking point.

The major problem lies and I'll bet you'll agree, with the impatience of Americans...plain and simple. We want everything now and we're unable to grasp that there is an unescapable problem with the world....terrorism, that needs to be dealt with as BEST we can...not like a video game.

"And by the way, I am not attempting to address the question of whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The fact is, we're there. The question I addressed is whether or not things are improving in Iraq. Those are two completely different questions, and should not be confused."

Again. This shows a lack of patience and I'll try to put this in as simple terms as possible; If you've had children, then you'd realize that nothing changes overnight when disciplining children, but you could easily change their religous beliefs through simple conversation, but as they grow older, they will begin to question the validity of their parents teachings early on, and begin to form their own opinion of the world and religion.

If you'll notice, there is progress in a "religous" Kosovo as the next generation enters the world and it has taken how many years?

That is my point. It takes time and although it started out as a noble cause and has had some pretty major bumps in the road to victory, it still IS a nobel cause.

I cannot speak for other conservatives, but I truly believe that our military and our President knows how to defend this great country better than you or I, therefore, I'm willing to give them both the time necessary to win this war...which I believe will be fought through the next fifty years.

Since my grandmother lived to 102, I may be around to see a somewhat peaceful world, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

If GW decides to pull out due to public opinion, then I'll lose all faith in him as a leader.
Thus far, GW is the ONLY leader we've had including his Dad that has had the juevos to attack terrorism head on and he hasn't shown one inclination of letting down.

I also believe he is more concerned with humanity as a whole rather than his legacy....hear...hear!

Do you think Rumsfeld was invited to the funeral? From past pictures I've seen it looks like they were very close.

but you could easily change their religous beliefs through simple conversation, but as they grow older, they will begin to question the validity of their parents teachings early on, and begin to form their own opinion of the world and religion.

That's a really good point, navydad.

...And with the shape the world and our country is in today, My, My. Indeed there is a lack of moral values being taught in America and throughout the world. More and more people are rejecting Jesus Christ, putting off going to church, and bringing their children up in very Liberal anti-God schools and colleges.

IMHO,It would be a worthy cause... for America to start waking up to this fateful reality, before Liberalism/Leftism has taken the country under.

It starts with our young people, We need to renew the Faith in America, and uphold God in the pledge, along with prayer, at the beginning of each school day. Schools need to uphold a policy which disdains foul-language and other obscenities, and due penalties for actions on those grounds broken by the students, Just common morals. If we don't start bringing the children up in the admiration of the Lord, we will eventually become a nation of chaos, which we pretty much already have, but we can change that!

Ricorun,

I don't understand how someone as intelligent as yourself could see this war as other than a noble cause? If you only understood the mind-set of the Muslims who threaten us. Listen, Islam teaches that Muslims must impose islamic law and wage war on non-Muslim and Christian nations. You see it's in their minds, and it's going to continue, and I don't know any other way to break this down other than to go to war, to change their minds.

Listen, the insurgency aka terrorists does'nt care how far they have to go to accomplish whatever bad intentions it is they hold against others who don't agree to their evil mindset of barbarism, and the only thing that will stop them is to continue to fight them on their own turf.

George W. Bush can see the danger we face, and the most of Conservatives can see this in America, and I see it a necessity that we should continue to back the President in his efforts to combat this threat we face! No question about it.

Just look at it this way, this is OUR land, my land, your land, everybody who is a citizen of this Great and wonderful land, and we call it the 'UNITED States of America' Well then, Let's keep the namesake of our Nation, and UNITE, behind our President, because as the saying goes "A house divided against itself CANNOT stand", and this is too cruel a day and time we live in, to just up and want to quit.

Jeremiah

Seventy-odd comments and no one hit upon the single most significant aspect of Saddam's execution. From J.R. Dunn at American Thinker:

Most of the great butchers of the 20th century died of old age, in their own beds, some of them honored by millions. Not a single one met justice in the sense accepted in free states across the world. The handful who died otherwise are aberrations, victims of strange events that act as models for nothing.
There is one single exception - the hanging of Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2006 after a careful, lengthy trial carried out under extremely difficult circumstances according to internationally recognized judicial norms. The state of Iraq has succeeded where the rest of the civilized world has failed. It is a singular achievement, and it will stand.

From past pictures I've seen it looks like they were very close.

Hey Josh, how old do you think this comment is? How many times did you read it, or a close facsimile thereof, on this blog? Past pictures? One picture, maybe, when Rummy was over there, supporting the Iraqi regime in their quest to stave off Iran. The enemy of my enemy, Josh. Are you so stupid, so lobotomized, that you don't understand? The answer is yes, and you've proven it time and time again. My only hope is that your boyfriend is smart enough to support you both; you'll never get past minimum wage with your (lack of) intellect...

navydad: "By saying "Even his wife concurs with that characterization"...when? I'd like to see the quote and if it's proven that she said it about his decisions for the war, I'll stand corrected, if not provided, well it's just another liberal talking point."

I didn't say Laura Bush's comment was specifically related to decisions on war policy, only that she was describing his general decision style. Anyway, the quote is contained in a Slate Magazine article (http://www.slate.com/id/2100064/), although that's not where I heard it first. I think I read it in Time, but I'm not certain. The quote is this:

"George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

If you're looking for specific references to decisions pertaining to war, look in Woodward's book, "Bush At War". He doesn't quote Laura, but W himself as saying: “I’m not a textbook player. I’m a gut player.” It was in relation to a question regarding the planning the invasion of Afghanistan. Similarly, Ron Suskind in an NYT Magazine piece (October 17, 2004) relates a story told to him by Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush. An exerpt follows:

"Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. “I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,” he began, “and I was telling the president of my many concerns”—concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. “‘Mr. President,’ I finally said, ‘How can you be so sure when you know you don’t know the facts?”‘ Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator’s shoulder. “My instincts,” he said. “My instincts.” Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. “I said, ‘Mr. President, your instincts aren’t good enough!”‘

Suskind goes on to say, "The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing — a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action. But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect. The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush’s top deputies — from cabinet members like Paul O’Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq — have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president’s decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his “gut” or his “instinct” to guide the ship of state, and then he “prayed over it.”

That's probably too long-winded for you, but what the heck. The fact is, stories like this are common within the Beltway. And frankly, I'm a little surprised it's news to you.

navydad again: "The major problem lies and I'll bet you'll agree, with the impatience of Americans...plain and simple. We want everything now and we're unable to grasp that there is an unescapable problem with the world....terrorism, that needs to be dealt with as BEST we can...not like a video game."

The operative phrase there is "as BEST we can". But even if we agree on that point, it doesn't suggest anything about the strategy to achieve it. I would also agree that American impatience is a problem. But I think you might agree as well that the Bush administration's pre-war rhetoric to the effect that it would be a relatively short, inexpensive war, didn't help much because it set up erroneous expectations. Likewise, the spate of recent, sudden reversals in Bush's rhetoric also feeds the dissonance. He really does have to stop treating the Iraq war like it's a video game.

You again: "That is my point. It takes time and although it started out as a noble cause and has had some pretty major bumps in the road to victory, it still IS a nobel cause."

The desire to do the right thing does not absolve the president from the necessity of doing the right thing right. Said in another way, I think everyone agrees that the elimination of terrorism is a very noble goal. But that doesn't imply anything about the best way to pursue it. That's really the issue as I see it. Whether invading Iraq was an essential ingredient in the best way to eradicate terrorism is irrelevant at this point. It happened, and we don't get do-overs. Likewise, decisions regarding the best way forward cannot be justified on the basis of how anyone feels about whether we should be there in the first place. The best way forward has to be predicated upon serious consideration of how best to stabilize the country so that it doesn't remain a haven for terrorists. And the bottom line for me is that I'm not confident that Bush can overcome his reliance on his gut instinct. Gut instincts (or heart, or juevos, or whatever you want to call the tendency to rely simply on what you believe is right) aren't good enough. In order to do the right thing right, one has to rise above one's innate tendencies and engage one's brain. Einstein once said about advances in science that they are "10% inspiration, 90% perspiration". I'm inclined to believe that successful foreign policy works the same way.

One final note to Jeremiah... no, I don't believe any war is a noble cause. Eradication of terrorism is a noble cause. Spreading democracy is a noble cause. Engaging in war is never a noble cause. At best it is sometimes an ugly necessity.

You know what Rerun

You answered my question with your last paragraph...to keep from being longwinded.

Your definition of nobel and mine will never be one in the same as long as you continue to believe that the terms war and noble can never be used as adjectives.

Whether you voted for GW or not, your dillusionally rosey opinion of how the world should be, isn't reality, nor will it most likely be in our liketime. So, my only suggestion to you is to get on board with the fight or be left behind wearing a burka and a dress....not that there's anything wrong with that :o)

I couldn't let this pass, no matter how much I wanted to.

"And the bottom line for me is that I'm not confident that Bush can overcome his reliance on his gut instinct."

If you honestly believe that GW makes these decisions without input from our military and terrorism experts, then you are more dillusional than you appear.

Only a loon from the left would think this way and if the shoe fits....

In order to do the right thing right, one has to rise above one's innate tendencies and engage one's brain.

Ricorun,

To break it all down, the result of the as you say, "gut feeling" equals *common sense*... And common sense, tells me, that this war is a *Noble cause*, because -- we face an enemy with which the larger picture being, density of mental issue's(terrorists) isn't going to go away any time soon, and it's only fitting that we continue to use *common sense* as our guide, and continue to keep planning on protecting the United States of America against this threat of terrorism, until it in fact, goes away... thus, common sense = Noble cause!!!!

It's all in God's hands right now, and I'm confident, that George Bush is in God's plan for America right now!!! No doubt about it!!!

Jeremiah

Im ASTONISHED at the rat lefts-rants.

lets see
50,000 deaths a YEAR on the highways.
16500 MURDERS a YEAR im Americas cities.
1,000,000 abortion MURDERS a YEAR.
BUT all we hear about is the 3000 Deaths of soldiers .....whom they HATE, over a 3 YEAR period is somehow more tragic than anything else.
These people are truly unhinged and dangerous.

Rico,

What you write in posts is just laughable. If you
want to continue to 'Bash-Bush' go ahead. I like knowing that THIS President who consults with all his military, staff, other officials in the Cabinet, can use all that input and also rely on his gut instincts. It shows that he does confer with others,- no matter how you try to spin it as if he is the "Lone Ranger".
You and your Ilk, should be glad to have a President who thinks with his brains, instead of Clinton whose brains were "behind his zipper and he thought with his Dick"(it's the reason we are in this mess today-the Clinton's lack of interest in fighting Terrorists that attacked Americans many times during their reign, giving them a pass by their fellow Dems, thus, empowering American's
enemies and emboldening them to attack on our own land on 9/ll). EVER WONDER WHY SANDY BERGER WAS REMOVING PERTINENT PAPERS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY INCRIMINATING FOR THE CLINTON'S. OPEN YOUR MIND
YOU F'N IDIOT AND YOUR EYES TO WHAT HAS REALLY GONE ON.

Im ASTONISHED at the rat lefts-rants.

lets see
50,000 deaths a YEAR on the highways.
16500 MURDERS a YEAR im Americas cities.
1,000,000 abortion MURDERS a YEAR.
BUT all we hear about is the 3000 Deaths of soldiers .....whom they HATE, over a 3 YEAR period is somehow more tragic than anything else.
These people are truly unhinged and dangerous.

Posted by: ExMarine at January 1, 2007 02:09 PM

Emphasis on "whom they HATE"! Well put fellow devil dog!

navydad: "If you honestly believe that GW makes these decisions without input from our military and terrorism experts, then you are more dillusional than you appear.

There you go conflating things again. You seem to have a real problem with that. I thought it was pretty clear that I think Bush relies too heavily on his gut, not that he relied on it exclusively. Let me try to make it even more clear to you: on the basis of just about everything I've read and heard (some of which I have outlined in my previous comments on this thread) Bush tends to lean heavily on a small number of advisors, doesn't like controversy/disagreement, and often does not probe too deeply. Rather, he relies on his gut instinct to fill in the gaps. I don't think you'll find too many people -- even those within his inner circle -- who would disagree with that assessment. The upside of it is that it makes for swift and certain decisions. The downside is that those decisions are less thorough and thus can sometimes be atrociously wrong.

Now, if you're fine with the level of progress in Iraq, then all is well and good. But I'm not fine with it. And frankly, I have a lot of people on my side: Rumsfeld, Gen. Casey, Gen. Abizaid, Colin Powell, the ISG, and even Bush himself, to name a few. To that (at least according to the polls) you could add a large majority of the American people. In fact, according to this year's Military Times poll, a larger proportion of career military guys (41%) disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation than approve (35%). Last year the spread was 54% approve/25% disapprove. That's a pretty big swing (By the way, you can find the polls here: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/).

So Jo, I'm not sure why you refer to me as a f'ing idiot. Most of your post was an irrelevant (and reiterative -- navydad beat you to it) rant about Clinton before you got around to that part. But if it's because I don't think things are going well in Iraq, I have lots of company.

But merely acknowledging that "Iraq is bad" (that's a quote from W) doesn't necessarily imply a strategy for making it better. I have suggested that Bush's decision-making style might have more than a little bit to do with why things are the way they are. I've also suggested that things aren't likely to get better unless or until he changes it. Am I certain of it? Not hardly. I'm just speculating on the basis of one line of available evidence (and again I have lots of company). There may be other factors involved as well. I am only certain of one thing: we have to change course in Iraq.

The good news is that Bush appears to be making an effort to significantly reshuffle his closest advisors, and he is talking with more people, hopefully in the interests of getting a broader perspective on the situation and possible future strategy. Those are good signs. So I guess we'll see.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. It appears that all people want to do is call me names and supply information that is totally irrelevant or hopelessly conflated. You have to understand that no matter how much you think the invasion of Iraq was a moral and/or strategic imperative, and no matter how much you think Clinton was responsible for having to face that imperative, none of it has anything to do with deciding the best way into the future. Casualities incurred are important, but I'm reasonably certain that the American people would be willing to sustain substantially more IF they were convinced it would do any good.

"Anyway, I'm done with this thread."

That's good because all you do is spin your opinion and as you so commonly accuse "conflate" everyone elses opinion.

I think I counted the use of the word "conflate" 63 times in three posts....just kidding.

Thank God he's done!!!

Obama-sama has Big Ears of Corn: I note your inability to articulate an argument or spell Tommy, and your unxious auhtoritarianism. I don't respect you of course, being the lick spittle that you are for your dear leader; that should be reward enough.

One would think Bush would get something right once in a while just becuase or probablistic alternaties... yet he is a consistant zero, like his supporters. He should be impeached and imprisioned.