Actually, despair isn't an issue here. I have nothing personally against tpq62. I don't know this person, I don't even know if it's a man or a woman. The reason I wrote what I did isn't because I wanted to mock him/her or anything of the kind, but simply show a point how ridiculous it is to mock or disrespect someone you don't know just because you happen to disagree with them.

Essentially, I did exactly the same thing tpq62 did to the President. There are many people on this site that do so.

I have many disagreements with the President on various issues, but I have respect for the man as a man. He's no better or worse than me as a human being and just as tpq62 or any other Bush-hat...

Actually, despair isn't an issue here. I have nothing personally against tpq62. I don't know this person, I don't even know if it's a man or a woman. The reason I wrote what I did isn't because I wanted to mock him/her or anything of the kind, but simply show a point how ridiculous it is to mock or disrespect someone you don't know just because you happen to disagree with them.

Essentially, I did exactly the same thing tpq62 did to the President. There are many people on this site that do so.

I have many disagreements with the President on various issues, but I have respect for the man as a man. He's no better or worse than me as a human being and just as tpq62 or any other Bush-haters might find it displeasing to have someone mock them - they're doing the same thing.

I'm not trying to defend the President because he can't do so himself, simply trying to make a point that disrespecting someone you don't know is just as wrong as someone who doesn't know you showing you disrespect. I realize that your Bush-hatred overwhelms any thoughts of decency or basic human respect that everyone should be entitled to, but it's something for you to consider nevertheless.

jklugman, I certainly don't look at things the way you do and you obviously have no idea of either definition of the word despair or what it means when applied to me. I have some health issues with my kids - that's certainly brings some despair... but if you think I'll lose any sleep over a party I don't belong to losing elections - you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not trying to defend the President because he can't do so himself, simply trying to make a point that disrespecting someone you don't know is just as wrong as someone who doesn't know you showing you disrespect.

That's a perfectly valid point. It would have been better if you had said that, instead of making a snide remark about another clipper's IQ.

jklugman, I certainly don't look at things the way you do and you obviously have no idea of either definition of the word despair or what it means when applied to me. I have some health issues with my kids - that's certainly brings some despair... but if you think I'll lose any sleep over a party I don't belong to ...

read more»

I'm not trying to defend the President because he can't do so himself, simply trying to make a point that disrespecting someone you don't know is just as wrong as someone who doesn't know you showing you disrespect.

That's a perfectly valid point. It would have been better if you had said that, instead of making a snide remark about another clipper's IQ.

jklugman, I certainly don't look at things the way you do and you obviously have no idea of either definition of the word despair or what it means when applied to me. I have some health issues with my kids - that's certainly brings some despair... but if you think I'll lose any sleep over a party I don't belong to losing elections - you have no clue what you're talking about.

You are half-right. I have no idea what you're talking about. I said I despair. While I am sorry that you have health issues with your children, I made no claims about you or anyone else having despair, or losing sleep over the upcoming midterm elections.

RS. I am absolutely not offended. I was joking when I said would cut me to the quick. Really, one doesn't post a Mad magazine for sparkling conversation it will inspire. It's a cage-rattler. No problem.

I have many disagreements with the President on various issues, but I have respect for the man as a man. He's no better or worse than me as a human being and just as tpq62 or any other Bush-haters might find it displeasing to have someone mock them - they're doing the same thing.

Here we differ. Just so you know, I have no respect for Bush. None. He has disgraced his office and dishonored this country. He deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason and has ...

RS. I am absolutely not offended. I was joking when I said would cut me to the quick. Really, one doesn't post a Mad magazine for sparkling conversation it will inspire. It's a cage-rattler. No problem.

I have many disagreements with the President on various issues, but I have respect for the man as a man. He's no better or worse than me as a human being and just as tpq62 or any other Bush-haters might find it displeasing to have someone mock them - they're doing the same thing.

Here we differ. Just so you know, I have no respect for Bush. None. He has disgraced his office and dishonored this country. He deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason and has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.
He has legalized the torture of prisoners--R.S. for that reason alone, he is indeed a worse human being than me, a far, far worse human being. How civil can one be to someone who advocates torture?

It is your opinion that President Bush "deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason..." There are many of us who completely disagree with *you*.

Fortunately, at this time in our history, we can still argue with words because the tradition of our Country has taught us tolerance of differing opinions. The fires of intolerance are being fanned by the media and the enemies of our way of life. They are using our freedoms to undermine our Constitution and divide us. As always, great countries are destroyed from within long before it's enemies are able to destroy them directly.

A person may not respect the man in the Presidency, but only in the recent past has that disrespect rea...

It is your opinion that President Bush "deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason..." There are many of us who completely disagree with *you*.

Fortunately, at this time in our history, we can still argue with words because the tradition of our Country has taught us tolerance of differing opinions. The fires of intolerance are being fanned by the media and the enemies of our way of life. They are using our freedoms to undermine our Constitution and divide us. As always, great countries are destroyed from within long before it's enemies are able to destroy them directly.

A person may not respect the man in the Presidency, but only in the recent past has that disrespect reached such a disgusting and degrading volume that it threatens to undermine our system of government. Anyone else visualizing the fool sawing off the branch on which he stands?

Jatfla

It is your opinion that President Bush "deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason..." There are many of us who completely disagree with *you*.

Well, yes...That was the point of the clip

Fortunately, at this time in our history, we can still argue with words
because the tradition of our Country has taught us tolerance of
differing opinions. The fires of intolerance are being fanned by the
media and the enemies of our way of life. They are using our freedoms
to undermine our Constitution and divide us. As always, great countries
are destroyed from within long before it's enemies are able to destroy
them directly.

I agree with this paragraph ...

Jatfla

It is your opinion that President Bush "deceitfully led this country into war for no good reason..." There are many of us who completely disagree with *you*.

Well, yes...That was the point of the clip

Fortunately, at this time in our history, we can still argue with words
because the tradition of our Country has taught us tolerance of
differing opinions. The fires of intolerance are being fanned by the
media and the enemies of our way of life. They are using our freedoms
to undermine our Constitution and divide us. As always, great countries
are destroyed from within long before it's enemies are able to destroy
them directly.

I agree with this paragraph completely. How could I not? I would point out that dissent is not intolerance. Basically, I simply do not think torture is part of this country, part of our traditions, or part of the Constitution. I think legalizing torture deeply undermines what it means to be American. The war is one thing--The US got through Vietnam; it'll probably get through Iraq. But I don't think it will get through legalizing torture. Can you see where someone might have that perspective and thus dissent?

@tpq62 - you claim that he led us into war for no good reason. I disagree completely. There's absolutely no evidence that that's the case. There is information on the record of the British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence and US Intelligence. How do you account for those accounts? Heck, even the people from Clinton camp (and that's someone I believe disgraced the office by being immoral and unethical to put it mildly) indicated the same and talked about regime change. I always go back to the few days before the war, when the whole war machine was in place and Bush gave saddam 2 days to get out of dodge. The idiot didn't take him up on his offer, and instead of sitting somewhere in I...

@tpq62 - you claim that he led us into war for no good reason. I disagree completely. There's absolutely no evidence that that's the case. There is information on the record of the British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence and US Intelligence. How do you account for those accounts? Heck, even the people from Clinton camp (and that's someone I believe disgraced the office by being immoral and unethical to put it mildly) indicated the same and talked about regime change. I always go back to the few days before the war, when the whole war machine was in place and Bush gave saddam 2 days to get out of dodge. The idiot didn't take him up on his offer, and instead of sitting somewhere in Iran-like country, smoking cigars and living it up with all this money - he crawled into a hole, only to... well you know how that deal turned out. So if one was to forget all of the party affiliations etc. and simply use logic - if Bush was so bent on this war - why do the dog and pony show at the UN before the war? Why insist on a resolution? and finally - why wait for a couple more days and put the entire war in jeopardy giving saddam a few days to leave? One could say that he knew saddam wouldn't go for it... and it may or may not be the case... but if he was so hellbent on this war - why take such a risk and make such an offer? All of this certainly doesn't point to him maliciously dragging the country into war. saddam was a terrible guy, doing terrible things to a lot of people, I don't think anyone would dispute that. He also was a guy who had very real support for terrorism, actively and publically encouraging it in palestine... again nobody would dispute that. He also had the most educated country in the Middle East , certainly with capacity to work on WMDs, especially considering that he had them and used them in the past. Just to let him be and possibly develop and/or use some seriously potent weapons wasn't a good strategy...

We let things 'just be' under Clinton, ignoring a number of attacks from people in Afghanistan and what did that strategy yield - 9/11. Definitely not a good approach.

No question that saddam was potentially the most dangerous entity in the Middle East at the time. With all of that, in retrospect, looking at how the war was conducted and what sectarian violence is doing, and the fact that Iran's "leader" lost a major adversary in saddam, which can arguably be looked at as part of the problem we now have with Iran - all of that, in retrospect, is certainly debatable and on the table. But, that in no way makes Bush some evil character, 'misleading' everyone into this war. The Congress alwa...

We let things 'just be' under Clinton, ignoring a number of attacks from people in Afghanistan and what did that strategy yield - 9/11. Definitely not a good approach.

No question that saddam was potentially the most dangerous entity in the Middle East at the time. With all of that, in retrospect, looking at how the war was conducted and what sectarian violence is doing, and the fact that Iran's "leader" lost a major adversary in saddam, which can arguably be looked at as part of the problem we now have with Iran - all of that, in retrospect, is certainly debatable and on the table. But, that in no way makes Bush some evil character, 'misleading' everyone into this war. The Congress always had the power to stop it, in fact they didn't have to authorize the money for it in the first place, or vote for it. Everyone in Congress saw the evidence, and the crap people like Kerry throw around, that he voted for the war, twice, was a mistake is nothing but crap, AFAIC. I actually commend Bush for not taking the easy route out, like Kerry & co. do, and simply say "I made a mistake" just because it's politically convenient now. The problem is that people aren't being genuine, they're being politically motivated and it's really sad, IMO, because while they're advancing their careers and pockets - they're hurting the country in the process. And to me, no political aspiration is worth it. Because if we lose this thing - none of this political BS will matter to anyone. Blaming someone at that point will be late and pointless.

Like I said, I disagree with the man on a number of issues, and I've stated which before and in relative detail, so I won't repeat myself, but I do think he is a decent human being. Your point about him causing all these deaths isn't appropriate, because using your logic - any leader fighting a war could be accused of causing deaths. That would include people like Washington and Lincoln, both of which are considered some of our best Presidents .

And finally, the torture business. Bush didn't invent it, exact nature of how information is extracted isn't known in public, although obviously there's plenty of speculation and I agree with him when he makes a statement that they pick up someone like that KSM guy, who has a wealth of information to share and they need to get that info out, because that's how they're able to prevent the next attack, which might kill you or yours... and he doesn't want this to happen. Nothing wrong with that, he's doing what every President before him swore to do - which is do whatever's necessary to defend American citizens. Whatever the intelligence people are doing has always been done. Again, if you ...

And finally, the torture business. Bush didn't invent it, exact nature of how information is extracted isn't known in public, although obviously there's plenty of speculation and I agree with him when he makes a statement that they pick up someone like that KSM guy, who has a wealth of information to share and they need to get that info out, because that's how they're able to prevent the next attack, which might kill you or yours... and he doesn't want this to happen. Nothing wrong with that, he's doing what every President before him swore to do - which is do whatever's necessary to defend American citizens. Whatever the intelligence people are doing has always been done. Again, if you want to accuse Bush of this, you'd have to accuse every single President before him, since the tactics haven't changed, just got on the front of NYT under Bush and not under some others. The phone eavesdropping etc. All of this makes sense from a defensive point of view. We live in a different world right now, with certainly people actively and intentionally wanting to kill us. You don't think these extaordinary times require some extraordinary measures to counter the threat? I certainly think that they do. Whatever means our intelligence people use to extract information pales by comparison to what the other side does to our boys when they get a hold of them (just recall Somalia and beheadings in Iraq, including burning of the bodies, dragging them around town and hanging them on a bridge, to mention a few).

War sucks! No question there! But losing a war sucks even more so - that's what we need to keep in mind. Part of our problems with this war is the fact that we're trying to be politically correct and careful and not offensive etc. which doesn't make anyone respect us more, but simply makes us look weaker and only emboldens the enemy and idiots around the world, like the one in Venezuela as an example. Bush has a horribly difficult job, too bad all can't see it.

@tpq62 - you claim that he led us into war for no good reason. I
disagree completely. There's absolutely no evidence that that's the
case. There is information on the record of the British Intelligence,
Russian Intelligence and US Intelligence. How do you account for those
accounts?

RS the issue isn't isn't how many countries had possible evidence that Iraq had WMDs. The issue is whether that evidence was good enough to justify a war. Even with the evidence that was outright fabricated, there was not enough. That is why the US had to buy alllies to go in with it. Even Colin Powell, who had to sell it, thought the evidence was crap. The war was sold with the idea that the...

@tpq62 - you claim that he led us into war for no good reason. I
disagree completely. There's absolutely no evidence that that's the
case. There is information on the record of the British Intelligence,
Russian Intelligence and US Intelligence. How do you account for those
accounts?

RS the issue isn't isn't how many countries had possible evidence that Iraq had WMDs. The issue is whether that evidence was good enough to justify a war. Even with the evidence that was outright fabricated, there was not enough. That is why the US had to buy alllies to go in with it. Even Colin Powell, who had to sell it, thought the evidence was crap. The war was sold with the idea that there was secret, definite evdence that couldn't be revealed without endangering inttelligence sources. When push came to shove --there was none. That was a lie. Most of the evidence of WMDs was gossip supplied by Chalabi. Remember him? The former darling of the neocons? The Iranian agent?

Blaming 9/11 on Clinton is silly.

I actually commend Bush for not taking the easy route out, like Kerry
& co. do, and simply say "I made a mistake" just because it's
politically convenient now.

RS, truth is more than "political convenience." It's...truth. If you indeed can admire someone simply because they can't admit when something they planned isn't working, then I understand your admiration of Bush.

Your point about him causing all these deaths isn't appropriate, because
using your logic - any leader fighting a war could be accused of
causing deaths.

No. That is not implied in what I said.

I don't know the extent of the evidence presented. All I know is that numerous sources in various nations had the same sentiment and so did Congress that voted for this war. This wasn't something that was started singlehandedly by Bush with everyone being outraged and against it because of lack of evidence. And if Powell actually spoke at the UN presenting all of this info knowing it was nothing - why did he do it?

Nobody's blaming Clinton for directly perpetrating 9/11, but it's silly NOT to blame him at all, considering how many times he could've had bin laden and didn't do squat and how he allowed al qaeda to grow and expand under his watch, and not do anything constructive about all ...

I don't know the extent of the evidence presented. All I know is that numerous sources in various nations had the same sentiment and so did Congress that voted for this war. This wasn't something that was started singlehandedly by Bush with everyone being outraged and against it because of lack of evidence. And if Powell actually spoke at the UN presenting all of this info knowing it was nothing - why did he do it?

Nobody's blaming Clinton for directly perpetrating 9/11, but it's silly NOT to blame him at all, considering how many times he could've had bin laden and didn't do squat and how he allowed al qaeda to grow and expand under his watch, and not do anything constructive about all of the attacks that US endured, including the one on US soil. So, considering the fact that if bin laden was taken out early enough it might have stopped 9/11 planning and execution - it's silly not to blame him for anything.

Your Kerry reference is a cheap shot. You know damn well what I meant, or if you don't - you should. I'm not saying Bush didn't make any mistakes. I just dislike the likes of Kerry when then say/vote for something, I'm assuming doing so with some intelligence and knowledge and later change their mind because it's no longer politically convenient.

We need leaders in this country who stand for something, not someone who changes their mind every two seconds depending on the latest poll.

On torture - I'm just as opposed to torture as you are. Outside of the fact that what exactly constitutes torture is debatable, all I can say is that ugly things happen during wars, because wars themselves are ugly. You can preach morality all day long in a civil and peaceful environment, dealing with like minded individuals who have values and value life. We're NOT fighting that kind of crowd! That's why the whole 'torture' thing is philosophical at best... it doesn't reflect the necessary reality on the ground...