Yea USMike......
I know the routine......Us Democrats are disloyal terrorists, lying in wait to help out the bad guys. Bush and Company with the guidance of Karl Rove decided a long time ago to go for the jugular..... Win at any cost is the motto of the neo-conservative right that considers that the "means justifies the end result". Every time this administration gets criticized they pull out the "disloyalty" card. They all wear the little flags as they go about their business of power at any cost. This country has survived as a democracy only with the help of brave patriotic citizens who are not afraid to criticize, and talk truth to power. To get back to the immediate subject.....you ...

Yea USMike......
I know the routine......Us Democrats are disloyal terrorists, lying in wait to help out the bad guys. Bush and Company with the guidance of Karl Rove decided a long time ago to go for the jugular..... Win at any cost is the motto of the neo-conservative right that considers that the "means justifies the end result". Every time this administration gets criticized they pull out the "disloyalty" card. They all wear the little flags as they go about their business of power at any cost. This country has survived as a democracy only with the help of brave patriotic citizens who are not afraid to criticize, and talk truth to power. To get back to the immediate subject.....you will never see a free and independent Iraq (even the neo-cons gave up on that idea!).....the Taliban is making a re-appearance......Al Qaeda is gaining support, and strength....Osama is still out there someplace, and Iran is thumbing its nose at us on a daily basis. I sure as hell never wanted or now want this country to be in this position. Don't shoot the messenger of bad tidings. Get rid of the idiots that got us here......and I don't care if they are wearing little flags on their lapel.

I have to say UpStateMike seems to be the only other one of us here who doesn't appear to be bitter in his comments. I'm beginning to actually believe that "liberalism (as it's known today) is a mental disorder." So Bush lied; that's great. Hey, now he's even a two-faced liar. I get it. Ok, I wish I knew why President Bush wants to send our guys to protect other countries' borders without first sealing ours. Wanna know what? Here's a real mind-bender for ya: PRESIDENT BUSH ISN'T A REAL CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE. But I still have to hold back the imperious urge to punch a "Bush-hater" right in his liberal mouth. Love your country or get out of here. My gosh, I think I may have a touch ...

I have to say UpStateMike seems to be the only other one of us here who doesn't appear to be bitter in his comments. I'm beginning to actually believe that "liberalism (as it's known today) is a mental disorder." So Bush lied; that's great. Hey, now he's even a two-faced liar. I get it. Ok, I wish I knew why President Bush wants to send our guys to protect other countries' borders without first sealing ours. Wanna know what? Here's a real mind-bender for ya: PRESIDENT BUSH ISN'T A REAL CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE. But I still have to hold back the imperious urge to punch a "Bush-hater" right in his liberal mouth. Love your country or get out of here. My gosh, I think I may have a touch of the bitter-bug, myself! I'm gonna put the rest of my "neo-con" thoughts in a book. Merry CHRISTmas, by the way, and keep abortion legal- eventually ALL of you libs will have erased yourselves..

Come on RecordSage....If the Gonzales statement about Habeas Corpus doesn't make your stomach churn, you must not be a patriotic American like me. Just in case you missed any of that great article. Here it the best part again. Read it. It's good for your soul, and your mind.

Bush's War on the Republic

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundament...

read more»

Come on RecordSage....If the Gonzales statement about Habeas Corpus doesn't make your stomach churn, you must not be a patriotic American like me. Just in case you missed any of that great article. Here it the best part again. Read it. It's good for your soul, and your mind.

Bush's War on the Republic

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially – tossing in unrelated enemies such as Iraq’s secular dictator Saddam Hussein, Shiite-led Iran, Syria and Islamic militants opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

In effect, Bush has transformed what began as a definable military objective – the defeat of “terrorist groups with global reach” – into an endless war against what he regards as evil, a conflict so vague that it is claiming as collateral damage America’s “unalienable rights” and the Founders’ checks and balances on the powers of the Executive.

Well, you may believe this stuff, but I don't. There are many things that could be said about terrorists and there's very clear evidence that Iranians are most definitely part of the mix, regardless of the fact that they aren't sunnis, same with hamas, fatah, hezbollah etc. - they're all well known terrorist organizations. The war is called 'war on terror' because the intent is to fight and eradicate this cancer that's plaguing many countries. It's not about a particular sect, nor is it necessarily just about islamic militants.

Iraq is raging right now because the iron fist that held it together has been removed. If you want to blame Bush for removing the fist - I'll agree with that, bu...

Well, you may believe this stuff, but I don't. There are many things that could be said about terrorists and there's very clear evidence that Iranians are most definitely part of the mix, regardless of the fact that they aren't sunnis, same with hamas, fatah, hezbollah etc. - they're all well known terrorist organizations. The war is called 'war on terror' because the intent is to fight and eradicate this cancer that's plaguing many countries. It's not about a particular sect, nor is it necessarily just about islamic militants.

Iraq is raging right now because the iron fist that held it together has been removed. If you want to blame Bush for removing the fist - I'll agree with that, but the turmoil is caused by other people and the sunnis killing shiites and vice versa isn't because of something Bush did.

RSage,
If the plan is to fight all the terrorists no matter what flavor.....ie hamas, fatah, hezbollah, etc, etc, etc.......then I think we are not going about it in the right way. I'm not an expert in why there are so many factions in the terror world, but it seems to me that they are there for political purposes. We call them terrorists. Others might just call them freedom fighters. It is all very complicated, and I don't presume to be able to make blanket statements on what to do about it. I can only give my opinion which is the product of my observations over the past several years. I think the Bushco administration, which started out composed of neo-conservatives (include Dick Che...

RSage,
If the plan is to fight all the terrorists no matter what flavor.....ie hamas, fatah, hezbollah, etc, etc, etc.......then I think we are not going about it in the right way. I'm not an expert in why there are so many factions in the terror world, but it seems to me that they are there for political purposes. We call them terrorists. Others might just call them freedom fighters. It is all very complicated, and I don't presume to be able to make blanket statements on what to do about it. I can only give my opinion which is the product of my observations over the past several years. I think the Bushco administration, which started out composed of neo-conservatives (include Dick Cheney), had an agenda. They did whatever was necessary to get our troops into Iraq. They had no real plan for the success of this very delicate adventure into a land and culture very foreign to them. All they had were: rose colored glasses, some pipe dreams about being greeted as liberators, a hopeful delusion that all that there oil would pay for the adventure, and lots of hubris, hootsba (sp?), black and white thinking (them and us...evil vs. good....the bad guys and the good guys....with us or against us....etc, etc, etc.) I'm still not sure if these leaders of the free world were really that stupid! It's all really hard to believe that people in the highest regions of power, in this great country, could be that naive and stupid! Well, the final verdict for this mis-adventure has been that we have increased the threat of terrorism by leaps and bounds. All of these terrorists groups have increased their influence in the region! AND YES!,,,,I do blame Bush and his cohorts. I see a country that has been devastated by our inability to have a plan, and an intelligent approach to the very real problem of extremism and terrorism in the world. "Bring em on!" is not a plan! I feel so bad for the loss of our young soldiers, and the effects it has produced in our country. I al

Based on my observations - I think you're dead wrong. Starting with having doubts about what's a 'freedom fighter' and what's a 'terrorist' - if you can't tell the difference, then you already have problems. There were too many things that could have gone wrong before the war that would've stopped it dead in its tracks - that's why I completely disagree with your notions of someone planning this war way before and no matter what going through with it. Just the one fact (and there were a number) where Bush gave saddam a few days to get out of Dodge... it makes zero sense to throw this kind of wrench in your own wheel if what you say was true. There was no reason for him to put the offer o...

Based on my observations - I think you're dead wrong. Starting with having doubts about what's a 'freedom fighter' and what's a 'terrorist' - if you can't tell the difference, then you already have problems. There were too many things that could have gone wrong before the war that would've stopped it dead in its tracks - that's why I completely disagree with your notions of someone planning this war way before and no matter what going through with it. Just the one fact (and there were a number) where Bush gave saddam a few days to get out of Dodge... it makes zero sense to throw this kind of wrench in your own wheel if what you say was true. There was no reason for him to put the offer on the table, but he did... and that's just one example.

As for feeling bad about Iraqis - that's a yes and a no. Certainly it's sad when people die needlessly, but the reality is - we're not killing them - they themselves are slaughtering each other. I'm assuming you don't buy into this garbage that US troops kill people left and right there. I'm sure there were casualties caused by our troops (which isn't atypical for a war), but vast majority of deaths in Iraq was caused by their own.

There's no question that we lifted the iron fist that held this sectarian idiocy under control and thus certainly responsible for that event. But the fact that they insist on killing each other non-stop... is something that is inherently theirs, something that goes back before US was even US and another proof that the only way you can deal with this mentality isn't with civility, decency and democracy, but with full and anabashed force - as unfortunate as it is - that's the only thing they seem to comprehend.

I like Colon Powell's statement to Bush. "You break it, and you own it". Every move the Bushco Neo-cons made were wrong. They had no idea of what to do after conquering Baghdad. They had no plan. It's a fact that they wanted to go into Iraq. Not disputed by anyone. It's a fact that they cherry picked intelligence to justify the war. Not disputed. It's a fact that they have been telling us for years now that we on the verge of victory. What victory? How do we now define victory? What was the objective? Why did it change constantly? What was all the "flip flopping" about? What is the objective now? Why is there no debate on anything in congress?

We are talking about lives l...

I like Colon Powell's statement to Bush. "You break it, and you own it". Every move the Bushco Neo-cons made were wrong. They had no idea of what to do after conquering Baghdad. They had no plan. It's a fact that they wanted to go into Iraq. Not disputed by anyone. It's a fact that they cherry picked intelligence to justify the war. Not disputed. It's a fact that they have been telling us for years now that we on the verge of victory. What victory? How do we now define victory? What was the objective? Why did it change constantly? What was all the "flip flopping" about? What is the objective now? Why is there no debate on anything in congress?

We are talking about lives lost on both sides. We are talking about lighting up a conflagration in the hotbed of the middle east. Was this our response to 9-11? Sad response. We go in there and destroy a countries infrastructure and blame them for killing each other. Most of the moderate people in Iraq are either out of there, or praying each day the they get to see the next day. All the nutballs are in charge now.....thanks to us.

In today's warfare, its the civilians that suffer. They have fancy words for the death and destruction......something about "collateral damage". You have no idea what actually has happened in Iraq. Might not be a bad idea if you and others that are in such agreement with this travesty get on that troop transport and head on over there. I know one thing.......war is hell!.....not to be entered into lightly! The Powell doctrine was overwhelming force, and an exit strategy. The Rumsfeld doctrine was "Shock and Awe", and do it on the cheap. Everyone should be involved in this mess. We should be having a draft and all the chickenhawks should be out there along with all their kids! The Bush twins should be manning a tank and serving their country!

Things you say couldn't be disputed actually could be. Your notion about US starting this bloodshed is totally factless. They had it all along, just in a different form. How do you think the 300,000 people found in mass grave got there? Saddam did his killing, in his own way, so let's not start with this stuff that it was nice and peaceful before we got there and now there's all this bloodshed. Saddam was killing masses of people, perhaps not using suicide bombers (he just paid for the ones in palestine), but with his execution squads. As I said before - the people who are doing most of the killing in Iraq are Iraqis themselves, so let's not drop this 'innocent civilians' on everyone. I'm su...

Things you say couldn't be disputed actually could be. Your notion about US starting this bloodshed is totally factless. They had it all along, just in a different form. How do you think the 300,000 people found in mass grave got there? Saddam did his killing, in his own way, so let's not start with this stuff that it was nice and peaceful before we got there and now there's all this bloodshed. Saddam was killing masses of people, perhaps not using suicide bombers (he just paid for the ones in palestine), but with his execution squads. As I said before - the people who are doing most of the killing in Iraq are Iraqis themselves, so let's not drop this 'innocent civilians' on everyone. I'm sure there are some, but certainly not all. The guy who blew himself up in a shiite market the other day was an Iraqi and a civilian and he certainly doesn't qualify to be an innocent one, but he did take 130+ other fellow Iraqis with him, very likely to be those innocent civilians you're talking about.

Your comment that in today's warfare it's the civilians that suffer is totally false - civilians have suffered in EVERY war.

You say I have no idea what actually happened in Iraq. I can just as accurate make the same statement to you. You don't have any idea either. I just happen to have reasonably decent sources... people who have served there and came back. That's where I get my info on the subject. Where do you get yours? The NYT?

I don't know if Powell doctrine was overwhelming force or not... if it was - I totally agree, that's what we should've done. That would've automatically translated into shock & awe. As for the draft - perhaps they'll bring it back.

Are your kids serving in Iraq? If they don't - you have no business sending Bush's there.

Anyway, the problem with you is total lack of understanding who the enemy of your country is. You're dumping on your own government and your own country... for whatever sad reason not realizing that...

Again, here is my position on the subject. It's how this discussion started and how it should end. Bush can't put this back together. He broke it! Constitution next?

Bush's War on the Republic

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially – tossing in unrelated ...

read more»

Again, here is my position on the subject. It's how this discussion started and how it should end. Bush can't put this back together. He broke it! Constitution next?

Bush's War on the Republic

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially – tossing in unrelated enemies such as Iraq’s secular dictator Saddam Hussein, Shiite-led Iran, Syria and Islamic militants opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

In effect, Bush has transformed what began as a definable military objective – the defeat of “terrorist groups with global reach” – into an endless war against what he regards as evil, a conflict so vague that it is claiming as collateral damage America’s “unalienable rights” and the Founders’ checks and balances on the powers of the Executive.

In Bush’s State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, there could be heard a requiem for the Republic.

“The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war,” Bush told Congress.

But that “evil” will always be “at work in the world,” so America will always be “a nation at war” and thus, under Bush’s theories of unlimited Commander-in-Chief powers, the American Republic will be banished permanently.

Bluntly put, Bush and his neoconservative legal advisers don't believe in the “unalienable rights” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, including ones as fundamental as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial and protections again

Thanks, Thorne. Bi-partisan, in concept, isn't bad - it's supposed to keep the other side honest, unfortunately we've seen more than enough dishonesty on both sides... over and over. "us vs them" will always be in play, but everyone needs to remember that "us" means Americans, not liberals or conservatives. That would be much more productive.

But we have what we have... not only some dishonesty, but also totally useless waste of time like the resolution that was passed today. Didn't do squat and Nancy announces that it's a great accomplishment for American people... talk about living in another realm. I was hoping that when Republicans had the majority and didn't use it in the appropri...

Thanks, Thorne. Bi-partisan, in concept, isn't bad - it's supposed to keep the other side honest, unfortunately we've seen more than enough dishonesty on both sides... over and over. "us vs them" will always be in play, but everyone needs to remember that "us" means Americans, not liberals or conservatives. That would be much more productive.

But we have what we have... not only some dishonesty, but also totally useless waste of time like the resolution that was passed today. Didn't do squat and Nancy announces that it's a great accomplishment for American people... talk about living in another realm. I was hoping that when Republicans had the majority and didn't use it in the appropriate manner, if the Democrats win - they'll take everything into consideration and do better (I guess my hope superseded logic in this instance), but here they are, totally wasting time on useless resolutions... too bad.