And if GW ever gets called to the stand and put under oath about this, I'd expect him to tell the truth.

I expected the President and his staff to tell the truth whether they were under oath or not. I guess that's an assumption nobody should make anymore.

The Ends justify the means! New Democrat slogan.

Is that a joke? This whole "war on terror" is a ends justifying the means scenario. They're spying on American citizens, torturing detainees, starting unprovoked wars, all in the name of 'national security.' Sadly, in our case, the 'means' is making us less secure. No 'end' in sight.

Is that a joke? This whole "war on terror" is a ends justifying the means scenario. They're spying on American citizens, torturing detainees, starting unprovoked wars, all in the name of 'national security.' Sadly, in our case, the 'means' is making us less secure. No 'end' in sight

What a maroon!

Insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts,

Some "real" facts might be nice.

Perhaps

So, you have no problem with the President misleading the country to GO TO WAR?! If the war was justified, and something we had to do there would be NO reason to mislead and/or lie.

House and Senate wringing their hands about him and his obvious WMD programs, and wishing something could be done, something finally was.

Something was done, indeed. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make us safer. Iraq in its current state is a training ground for terrorists and has allowed Iran to gain strength against the West. The only winners so far are Muslim extremists and Iran. Saddam was a bad guy, but there are a lot of other bad leaders out there, many of which have, or are developing WMD. Not only are we not stopping them, we're ignoring them. Was anything done after N. Korea launched their missles? Whether they worked or not, we ignored them. Iran is still thumbing their nose at us, and with no consequenses. While I agree the UN is far from ideal, bordering on the useless, there is a reason is exists. But a lot of the uselessness come from the fact that we don't abide by their rules. If we just followed the UN in one case, Iraq, imagine how much better off we would be.

it wouldn't surprise me that he was on the receiving end of at least some of that.

Speculate all you want, but the facts of Iraq is that members of Bush's staff, and his friends in the corporate world, are getting filthy rich off this war. No bid contracts, massive overcharging, etc. I don't think Clinton got any money from Saddam, but I do know that Bush and his buddies are getting money from his removal.

Maybe he had nothing to al-Qaeda, maybe he did.

No. There is no maybe. Iraq did NOT have anything to do with al Qaida. Saddam was generally a secular dictator. He didn't agree with the extremist view bin Laden had on Islam, and there was no way he would allow such a powerful organization into his country, which would take power away from himself. Saddam did support terrorists groups, but so do a lot of other leaders and groups.

he deserved to be taken down just for being an ass on a global scale.

There are a lot of people in a lot of countries, including this one, who would like to see George W. Bush be taken down just for being an 'ass.' I'd support him being taken out of office.

And by doing so, may have saved countless American lives by getting information from terrorist prisoners kept in those prisons.

Ah, so the ends DO justify the means to you? Not only are the secret prisons immoral, they're illegal. They're against international law and American law. What happened to due process? If we can't give the worst of the worst the same rights we give the average American, what's the point in having rights? Also ask, why have secret prisons? Why not just stick them in Guantanamo? Whatever they were doing in those prisons was probably bad enough that the prisons themselves couldn't be known. Which leads to the point that information obtained through torture is rarely accurate.

Wartime is wartime.

Does that mean we can just throw away our rights? That disrespects the soldiers who fought for them, the same soldiers Bush and many on the right so aggressively defend. But when you ignore the Constitution, and human decency, their deaths will be in vain.

We're as imperfect as everyone else.

I'm aware of that. I'm not perfect either. But I acknowledge it. I don't claim to follow and act on the teachings of a great (and liberal) teacher 2000 years ago and say whatever I do, he is on my side. Especially when I'm quite sure people like the President are the same people that made God send Jesus in the first place. (at least if you believe that, which I don't) But based on what we know about Jesus and his teachings, Bush and many on the right are the opposite of what Christianity is about.

according to your own PC Laws of Tolerance, you're not supposed to judge, either, but you do.

It's not my rule. It's impossible not to judge certain things. But if you're going to follow human nature and not your religion, what good is having the religion? Your God would appreciate someone who is open and honest and tries to be a generally good person for their entire life, than someone who lies and manipulates for greed and power and says "I'm sorry" right before they die. A lifetime of good deeds should be worth more than a deathbed repentance.

I don't think there are many Socialists or Communists out there anymore. It's a very small minority of liberals. The pragmatic ones are the libertarians, like myself. I see that government cannot govern everyone equally, so they should govern as little as possible, while still keeping order and a healthy society and country. A laywer once described the difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' for me once, and I'd say it's pretty accurate. "The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals say they will run your lives, but they don't. Conservatives say they won't run your lives, but they do."

And by the way, I appreciate the civil discussion, Rightwinger. We would all be better off if we could be sure our discussions on serious issues wouldn't end up with silly name-calling or animosity towards the other person.

Maybe he had nothing to al-Qaeda, maybe he did. No. There is no maybe. Iraq did NOT have anything to do with al Qaida. Saddam was generally a secular dictator. He didn't agree with the extremist view bin Laden had on Islam, and there was no way he would allow such a powerful organization into his country, which would take power away from himself. Saddam did support terrorists groups, but so do a lot of other leaders and groups.

Just more leftist baloney. Here's just one

The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment. In interviews conducted over the past six weeks with uniformed officers on the ground in Iraq, intelligence officials, and senior security strategists, several things became clear. Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Evidence of these links existed before the war. In making its public case against the Iraq regime, the Bush administration used only a fraction of the intelligence it had accumulated documenting such collaboration. The intelligence has, in most cases, gotten stronger since the end of the war. And through interrogations of high-ranking Iraqi officials, documents from the regime, and further interrogation of al Qaeda detainees, a clearer picture of the links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is emerging.

And here's the link WWW Link">Link

Here's more
[link="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html"]WWW Link">Link

And here is CLINTON making the link:

[link="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm"]WWW Link">Link

[link="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp"]WWW Link">Link

[link="http://www.nysun.com/article/29746"]WWW Link

And the list just keeps on going!

So, you have no problem with the President misleading the country to GO TO WAR?! If the war was justified, and something we had to do there would be NO reason to mislead and/or lie.

---Adamness

It was justified, and for years, at that.
I don't agree with a lot of what Bush has done, but I personally think he was correct in invading Iraq. Sadaam got away with ignoring UN resolutions for over ten years before he got what was long in coming. By all rights and justice, it should have happened years ago.
The only problem there seems to be is with who finally did it. The hated and reviled G.W. Bush---you know, Bush, the master manipulator/village idiot/evil genius/moron/megalomaniacal puppetmaster/towel-snapping, smirking fratboy who stole the elections? Yeah, him.
Just an opinion again, but I'd be willing to bet it all that, if this had all been done by and under Clinton or Gore, the outcry would be a lot quieter, the support a lot louder.

Something was done, indeed. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make us safer

---Adamness


Once again I'll point to the serious lack of Islamic terror-related deaths on US soil, despite the predicted waves of them post-9/11/01.
I keep hearing the Dems telling us how we're no safer, and in some ways we may not be (I think the borders should have been closed down by 11:00AM that day, and should still be shut tight), but yet we're not exactly under seige in the manner Israel is. Whatever Bush is doing in keeping things out there, away from us, it does seem to be working.


More later. I promise I'll get to this in full, and soon.

Continuing from #36:

Adamness:

Iraq in its current state is a training ground for terrorists and has allowed Iran to gain strength against the West.

It's also a killing ground for terrorists, terrorists that might otherwise have been pouring into the States. And, it's put a sizeable military force on Iran's western border. Once things get officially turned over to Iraq, which will happen, we'll have a nice position from which to attack Iran, when the time comes. That will happen, too, and I'd bet you wouldn't feel us justified in that, either. Maybe if a Democrat is in office when the Dogs of War are unleashed on Iran, we'll get your thumbs up?

Not only are we not stopping them, we're ignoring them. Was anything done after N. Korea launched their missles

When the British sent troops to Canada during our Civil War, and positioned them on the border in a clear threat to invade and take back their colonies, Lincoln said "One war at a time", and nothing was done.
And so we should have done what? Invade them, too? So you could complain about Bush sending yet MORE troops off to war in Korea when the job in Iraq wasn't yet done, right?

Iran is still thumbing their nose at us, and with no consequenses

No, they're thumbing their nose at the UN, which will wait and wait and talk and talk until Iran has a thousand long-range, multi-warhead missles in position. Then, shocked at our violence when we finally bomb the shit out of Iran, the UN will complain about us and draft resolutions against us.

We are, after all, the world's largest Bad Guy and bully.

While I agree the UN is far from ideal, bordering on the useless, there is a reason is exists.

No, there WAS a reason it exists. They've long ago forgotten that reason, though, and are content to sit in mindless, useless inactivity, blowing off hot air and working at endlessly conflicting agendas while the world goes to hell in a handcart around them. Then they want to complain when someone usurps their long-surrendered "authority" and acts unilaterally to end a problem or threat that should have been their responsibility all along.
F D Roosevelt probably spins in his grave every time the UN allows some undesirable something to happen that could have been stopped or avoided. It's become a Socialist organization, supporting a New World Socialist order (and the biggest threat and obstacle to worldwide Socialism is the USA), and a mockery of what its founders envisioned. No better than the League of Nations before it. Actually worse, in some ways.

But a lot of the uselessness come from the fact that we don't abide by their rules. If we just followed the UN in one case, Iraq, imagine how much better off we would be.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of two times in which we slavishly followed the UN: The Korean War and the Balkan conflict. Look how well those turned out. We still have to keep troops in both places. And look who was sitting in the White House both times....a Democrat. Stunning.

Speculate all you want, but the facts of Iraq is that members of Bush's staff, and his friends in the corporate world, are getting filthy rich off this war. No bid contracts, massive overcharging, etc. I don't think Clinton got any money from Saddam, but I do know that Bush and his buddies are getting money from his removal.

"The business of America is business"---Calvin Coolidge

The world is not perfect, it's not pretty, and I really could give a crap less about this. All I care about is us winning the war and keeping American troops safe and alive.

No. There is no maybe. Iraq did NOT have anything to do with al Qaida. Saddam was generally a secular dictator. He didn't agree with the extremist view bin Laden had on Islam, and there was no way he would allow such a powerful organization into his country, which would take power away from himself. Saddam did support terrorists groups, but so do a lot of other leaders and groups.

Even if true, big deal. He did allow terrorists to train on his soil. Who knows where many of those warm bodies might have ended up working? Sadaam finally got what was coming to him for years, and we closed down a terrorist finacial institution and Vocational Technical School. Two birds, one stone.

There are a lot of people in a lot of countries, including this one, who would like to see George W. Bush be taken down just for being an 'ass.' I'd support him being taken out of office.

I'm sure they, and you, would. If not liking your president was grounds for removing him, we'd be changing presidents every few years, and...oh, wait....WE DO! Gosh, think of it...Bush'll be out of office in a couple years, and you can, at long, long last, put in someone who'll let the UN and all those little pissant countries with the tinpot Hitlers running them tromp all over us. Just like they did from 1993-2001. I can't wait.

Ah, so the ends DO justify the means to you?

+LOL+In wartime, when lives are at stake, God, yes! Whatever works.
If you have a choice between using heavy artillery and air power to kill en masse, or using a six-shot pistol to pick off enemy troops one by one, which will you use?
It might be more fair to give them a greater chance to kill you by using the pistol, but why, when you can kill more of them more efficiently and in a shorter amount of time and maybe end the war faster? Whatever works. When will you people learn that?

Not only are the secret prisons immoral, they're illegal. They're against international law and American law. What happened to due process? If we can't give the worst of the worst the same rights we give the average American, what's the point in having rights?

Agreed; I don't like the idea at all, but if secret prisons, where things happen that perhaps shouldn't, are what it takes to keep Americans, and Westerners in general, safe and alive, then by all means, do what you must. Taking the high road might be preferable, but it's not always logical or productive.
Moral victories don't count for much when you're scrubbing up the blood and flesh of people who could have been saved by a little fast and loose playing with the rules. Especially if that flesh was yours or someone you loved.

These people are evil, and, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "When Good negotiates with Evil, Good loses."
You can't negotiate with these people; all you can do is kill them or cause them more pain and loss than they cause you. It's all they understand.

Also ask, why have secret prisons? Why not just stick them in Guantanamo? Whatever they were doing in those prisons was probably bad enough that the prisons themselves couldn't be known. Which leads to the point that information obtained through torture is rarely accurate.

Well, haven't you heard? Gitmo is a hellhole of a torture dungeon, itself. What would be the difference? As to the information not being reliable, again I return to that pesky lack of terror deaths thus far. Someone's doing something right. they need to keep doing it.

Does that mean we can just throw away our rights? That disrespects the soldiers who fought for them, the same soldiers Bush and many on the right so aggressively defend. But when you ignore the Constitution, and human decency, their deaths will be in vain.

We sure as hell gave them up during WW1 and WW2, and willingly...the press and entertainment media were managed by the government, and very often even censored themselves.
People were disallowed from going certain places and doing certain things, they even gave up much of their right to Free Speech and even their Pursuit of Happiness, all for a greater good: the right for both to continue at a later date, which they did.
The people then knew and acknowledged that there were (and are) people in the world who want to hurt and kill us, and they willingly gave it all up for a while so those people could be stopped.
The word for all this is "sacrifice", which is something people since then have forgotten how to do. We've been led to believe that our rights and freedoms are paramount over all other things, even threats to those rights and freedoms.
If you believe that, you've been mislead.
We have the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in those war eras to thank for our freedoms now. Will our children and grandchildren be able to thank us?

I'm aware of that. I'm not perfect either. But I acknowledge it. I don't claim to follow and act on the teachings of a great (and liberal) teacher 2000 years ago and say whatever I do, he is on my side. Especially when I'm quite sure people like the President are the same people that made God send Jesus in the first place. (at least if you believe that, which I don't) But based on what we know about Jesus and his teachings, Bush and many on the right are the opposite of what Christianity is about.

This is your opinion, and you're still very welcome to it, despite the great hue and cry over the supposed erosion of our rights.
As to Jesus being a liberal, yes, 2000 years ago, he was. But His teachings and their followers very, very often come under fire by the liberals of today, many of whom would like nothing more than to silence Him completely.
They keep complaining about the war and undermining our efforts, and they won't have to worry about it anymore. They'll be forced at gunpoint to worship Allah....and that means you, too, Mr. Atheist.

It's not my rule. It's impossible not to judge certain things. But if you're going to follow human nature and not your religion, what good is having the religion? Your God would appreciate someone who is open and honest and tries to be a generally good person for their entire life, than someone who lies and manipulates for greed and power and says "I'm sorry" right before they die. A lifetime of good deeds should be worth more than a deathbed repentance.

I admit that it's really easy to say this, but here it goes: "That's between them and God." If I'm not going to judge them, whether or not I agree with their actions is irrelevent.
As an atheist, you of course don't give God His due. God knows what's in the heart, and God will do what He does with them, and will judge them accordingly. The only deathbed "I'm sorry"'s that would be accepted are the heartfelt ones, wherein the dying person actually realizes and utterly regrets his/her actions. Otherwise, the trapdoor awaits.

Is Bush acting as a true Christian in his actions? As a Christian, I support him because I acknowldge the threat to my faith, my nation and my very life that Islamic zealotry represents. Christ got mad and threw the moneychangers out of the temple in defense of His Father. Can we do no less with a more direct threat?

I don't think there are many Socialists or Communists out there anymore. It's a very small minority of liberals

You'd be surprised. A group called the "Youth Action League" is starting up at my son's High School. They're a group founded to spread the gospel of the Socialist Party among the young and impressionable. Many of the most vocal and virulently anti-war and peace at any price groups are backed by Communist and Socialist organizations. They're still out there.
The problem isn't necessarily the number of liberals; I believe that true "liberals" are in the minority. The problem is that, for whatever reason, they're more vocal and motivated than conservatives, lending them the illusion of greater numbers. The fact that many Hollywood and Newsmedia types are liberals, too, and thus have an easier, ready-made outlet for their views, doesn't help. Also in that mix is the fact that we are terribly celeb-obsessed people, and their opinions thusly, if undeservingly, carry a lot of weight, no matter how vacuous or uninformed the speaker may be. This also helps give liberals the illusion of numbers.

The pragmatic ones are the libertarians, like myself. I see that government cannot govern everyone equally, so they should govern as little as possible, while still keeping order and a healthy society and country.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than you do, but if I have to choose between a little more government than I'd like or having thousands dying every day in terror attacks, or maybe even losing my freedoms altogether to some guy with a towel on his head and gun in his hand, I'll take the greater government until the threat is passed.

"The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals say they will run your lives, but they don't. Conservatives say they won't run your lives, but they do."

He was probably a liberal lawyer. Here's how I see it:

Liberals (especially modern ones, since the '60s) say they don't WANT to run your lives, but they really do. Conservatives don't want to run your lives, but WILL.

And by the way, I appreciate the civil discussion, Rightwinger. We would all be better off if we could be sure our discussions on serious issues wouldn't end up with silly name-calling or animosity towards the other person.

Right back atchya, pal; I don't get mad or name-call. This is just a blog, after all, and nothing will ever get solved here. It's just for fun....unless, of course, we could convert you......heheheheheheheh

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I lost my internet connection for a few days, and then I couldn’t find this thread for a little bit. I don’t even know if anyone is still checking, but if so, Here’s my loooong reply.

That will happen, too, and I'd bet you wouldn't feel us justified in that, either.

Nope. It’s not our place. We tried being world police, and look what we got for it. 3,000 dead American civilians, and 2,700 dead American troops. While I realize the UN is essentially useless, we live in a world where an international force is needed. That’s why Bush pushed the idea of the ‘coalition of the willing,’ despite it being a farce. (Come on, do you think Moldova’s 12 troops did anything?)

When the British sent troops to Canada during our Civil War, and positioned them on the border in a clear threat to invade and take back their colonies, Lincoln said "One war at a time", and nothing was done. And so we should have done what? Invade them, too? So you could complain about Bush sending yet MORE troops off to war in Korea when the job in Iraq wasn't yet done, right?

If you like the ‘one war at a time idea,’ where does Iraq come from? I’m not saying we need to invade them, but we do need to engage them. In a press conference a couple months ago, Bush was asked something about how North Korea gained the capacity to make 6-10 nuclear weapons. Rather than explain, he acted like he didn’t know this happened, and questioned the premise. All experts, including those in the White House, acknowledge North Korea can produce more weapons since Bush took office. To me, this shows no interest in an important matter. When people accuse Bush of being dumb, they’re (almost) always corrected that he isn’t dumb, but incurious. I agree.

No, they're thumbing their nose at the UN

So when the UN fails to act, it becomes America’s responsibility? What if the UN does something else we don’t like? Should we be able to just override everything they decide? One of the reasons the UN is weak is because we ignore it.

No, there WAS a reason it exists

So you think there should be international anarchy? No rules for each other to abide by, and no body to oversee everything? Or maybe you just think the UN should do whatever we say? Or maybe create a completely new international institution? Something else?

Just off the top of my head, I can think of two times in which we slavishly followed the UN…

I’d say the Balkan conflict was a success. Leaving troops somewhere is a sign of failure? And Korea was 50 years ago. I don’t think it’s fair to judge them by what happened so long ago. Do we blame our own government for segregation, and even slavery, so many years ago?

The world is not perfect, it's not pretty, and I really could give a crap less about this. All I care about is us winning the war and keeping American troops safe and alive.

Being not perfect and pretty is a lot different than starting a war to get your buddies rich. It’s a conflict of interest if there ever was one, and I think it’s sad they were allowed to do it. I care about the well being of our troops too, and that’s why I’m upset that they were sent to Iraq prematurely. If we waited until the weapons inspectors completed their job, the main reason we went, WMD, would be proven wrong. I’m sure you think the inspectors couldn’t get the job done with Saddam not allowing full disclosure, but they weren’t going to find something that didn’t exist. WMD production isn’t something that’s done in a basement. It takes a lot to produce nerve gas or nuclear weapons. They would have found SOME kind of evidence.

Even if true, big deal

The big deal is that you, and the country, have been had. You should be pissed off that all of the main reasons we went to Iraq were flat wrong. All they have left is that Saddam was a bad guy. Again, there are a lot of bad guys. There are a lot of countries that have terrorist training camps. We’re even allies with some of them. What made Iraq so unique? Are we just going down the line of countries we don’t like, destroying their government and bringing them to the verge of civil war? That’s not very American-like. It’s certainly not moral. Saddam was bad, but as it turns out, he was contained. Same cannot be said for Kim Jong Il, or Ahmedinejad. And what about the horrible dictators in Africa? Look what happening in Darfur. The Sudanese government has killed and raped more people than Saddam ever did. And when the 20,000 Janjaweed gets done massacring black people, they’ll turn their violence on us. Bin Laden is already trying to get them to do that.

Just like they did from 1993-2001. I can't wait.

Clinton’s biggest mistakes were not helping to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and not going after al Qaida. Granted those are pretty major mistakes. But if he had, I’d say the 90s was one of the better decades in American history. Not so much hostility towards each other at least.

Whatever works. When will you people learn that?

I like to think America is the moral leader of the world.. When we have 150,000 dead Iraqis by some estimates, that goes beyond ‘collateral damage.’ Soldiers have murdered a few Iraqis, and we can’t forget Abu Ghriab. While these are isolated incidents, it takes away from our moral superiority.

Taking the high road might be preferable, but it's not always logical or productive.

For the short term, maybe not. But these prisons and accusations of torture take something away from America that will tarnish our image forever. All America has is it’s image of freedom and equality and mercy. I’d rather be loved by the world rather than 100% secure. Absolute security is impossible when the Constitution is properly followed (ahem), so we should at least have support of the world. We’re going to be attacked no matter what we do, so why not be the moral leaders. At least nobody would be able to say “they deserved it.”

As to the information not being reliable, again I return to that pesky lack of terror deaths thus far.

There is absolutely no evidence or reason to think the reason we haven’t been attacked is because of torturing detainees or anything else Bush has done. It’s more likely they haven’t tried anything major on US soil yet. And even if Bush and his policies are the sole reason we haven’t been attacked, it isn’t something to brag about. That’s his job. Keeping us safe is his number one job, which he failed at once already.

We sure as hell gave them up during WW1 and WW2, and willingly...the press and entertainment media were managed by the government, and very often even censored themselves.

So whatever makes us American, we should just give up when it gets hard. We should hand ourselves right over to the government anytime there’s a war? The press’ job is to ask questions and stand up to the government, not become a bullhorn for it. Bush said we could be in this war for years, decades even. Should we just let the government completely take everything over and turn the country into a dictatorship just because you feel safer?

We've been led to believe that our rights and freedoms are paramount over all other things, even threats to those rights and freedoms.

Yes, because that’s what rights are. They aren’t a privilege, they are part of a free society and country. If you don’t want to live in freedom, that’s your choice, but I do. I demand that my rights not be taken away or restricted when things get rough. Otherwise, what are we fighting for?

We have the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in those war eras to thank for our freedoms now. Will our children and grandchildren be able to thank us?

Will they really? Will they thank us for leaving them with a $10 trillion+ debt? Or melting ice caps? Or a permanent troop presence in Iraq? Or the world hating us? Or the many other things the government is doing, while the media and citizens ignore it or accept it in the name of ‘national security?’

His teachings and their followers very, very often come under fire by the liberals of today, many of whom would like nothing more than to silence Him completely.

That’s not true at all. Atheists make up 5-8% of the country. We’re under represented, possibly more than any other group in America. Many would like to see all religion gotten rid of, but not all of us. Many Christians would like America to become a Christian nation, but not all of them. Most of us don’t want to silence anyone, but we don’t want your faith jammed down our throats in public institutions.

They keep complaining about the war and undermining our efforts, and they won't have to worry about it anymore. They'll be forced at gunpoint to worship Allah....and that means you, too, Mr. Atheist.

When your efforts are wrong and harmful to the country, I hope we do undermine them. No matter what happens, and no matter who is President, we won’t be forced to worship Allah at gunpoint, Mr. Dramatic.

The only deathbed "I'm sorry"'s that would be accepted are the heartfelt ones, wherein the dying person actually realizes and utterly regrets his/her actions.

While this may be true based on your faith, I think this is awful. Take the extreme (and cliché) example of Hitler. He could apologize many, many times over, and mean it. I won’t accept it. If Hitler under any circumstance could get into heaven, I wouldn’t want to join him.

Is Bush acting as a true Christian in his actions?

You didn’t answer your own question. The answer is certainly ‘no.’

As a Christian, I support him because I acknowldge the threat to my faith, my nation and my very life that Islamic zealotry represents. Christ got mad and threw the moneychangers out of the temple in defense of His Father. Can we do no less with a more direct threat?

I hope you’re not comparing Bush to your Messiah. Aside from the blasphemy, it’s completely wrong. Christ threw the moneychangers out of the Temple without violating his own principles. Bush is violating the very core of American principles.
I see no difference between Islamic zealotry and Christian zealotry. People like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps are the loudest American Christians around. I’m scared of them and their influence. I’m more scared of them than the Islamic zealots.

You'd be surprised. A group called the "Youth Action League" is starting up at my son's High School. They're a group founded to spread the gospel of the Socialist Party among the young and impressionable.

I wouldn’t worry about it. High school kids don’t know the realities of socialism or communism. They only see it as a wonderful fairy tale, instead of the hell it creates.

The problem isn't necessarily the number of liberals; I believe that true "liberals" are in the minority. The problem is that, for whatever reason, they're more vocal and motivated than conservatives

I agree. True liberals are in the minority, but the same goes for true conservatives. Most Americans are moderates. I don’t think liberals are more vocal, especially with the media being so weak. They don’t stand up to the President. They don’t do anything. At the moment, the most vocal people are the conservatives on Fox.

The fact that many Hollywood and Newsmedia types are liberals, too, and thus have an easier, ready-made outlet for their views,

Artists and intellectuals usually are liberal. Why shouldn’t they be able to speak out when they have an opportunity? To be honest, I don’t give a rats ass about what any celeb says. My opinions aren’t based on them. And according to the last election, most of the country doesn’t care either. They have much less influence than you think.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than you do, but if I have to choose between a little more government than I'd like or having thousands dying every day in terror attacks, or maybe even losing my freedoms altogether to some guy with a towel on his head and gun in his hand, I'll take the greater government until the threat is passed.

I’d rather have the country hold onto it’s principles and ideals than lose ourselves for ‘national security.’ If all you’re concerned about is our security, why don’t we just build underground bunkers and never leave? We’ll never be secure, so we might as well be free.

Liberals (especially modern ones, since the '60s) say they don't WANT to run your lives, but they really do. Conservatives don't want to run your lives, but WILL.

So you say both run our lives? I don’t think so. Liberals allow people to live as they want. Conservatives want to restrict us. No gay marriage. No abortion. No stem cell research. No evolution. No Constitution. Why is everything the conservatives are for against everything? If you want to live in a restricted and stifled society, Iran would probably take you.

It's just for fun....unless, of course, we could convert you......heheheheheheheh

Or I convert you.

Heh, I asked essentially the same question, dharma (#23), but no reply.

I think many Americans are starting to question how effective we can be in Iraq.

When you think about the possibilities of stem cell research, $90 million is nothing. Billions should be poured into it. The bill that Bush vetoed a couple months ago would have allowed couples to donate their OWN cells for research. Because this bill was vetoed, those cells, and many others will be destroyed. These cells don't last forever. So Bush would rather have these cells killed than used to improve or save lives.

The existing lines that are being tested on are contaminated and largely unuseable for the research scientists want to do.

If you want states to decide on gay marriage, then what was that Federal Marriage Amendment about? You know, the one that would ban all gay marriage?

Most people do want abortion left up to states, but many far right wingers, including Bush, would love to see it banned outright.

I don't get why conservatives play the libertarian card only with abortion. Anything that isn't national defense, federal taxes, interstate commerce, interstate crime and a couple other things should be left up to states. I don't trust the Federal government to do much else.

I already am upset at the deficit. But if Bush is going to bankrupt us, he might as well help some people out in the process. (Other than his corporate buddies, that is.)

You're right, my post said conservatives want to restrict us. I didn't say they have. I said they wanted to. If they got their way, we would have no abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research. That's ridiculous and unconstitutional intrusion into our lives.

The American voters didn't give a damn about gay marriage until it was brought up by Republican strategists and right wing lobbyists. They're the ones who wrote the Marriage Amendment, and they're the ones that pushed for it.

Partial birth abortions are pretty gruesome, but there are certain circumstances where they're needed, like if the mother's life is in danger. Of course, I consider capital punishment gruesome as well, but that's another story. The President has never said outright that he wants all abortions banned, but I also know he's not an independant person and relies on the information and support from the people who do want it banned.

It's not a question of gay marriage or abortions or this or that. It's a question of how far you want the government getting involved in your life. It's easy to be against something when you're not affected by it. There are many girls out there who were against abortions until they realized they needed to get one. There are parents out there who were against gay marriage until they found out their children were gay. You would think that Dick Cheney, based on his ideology would be against gay marriage, and yet, he's not. Interesting, eh?

DU?

It was predicted Iraq had vast stores of WMD. Rumsfeld even said he knew where they were.

And they did indeed find stores of chemical weapons (made in Germany). Vast stores were never "predicted", only a weapons program was. And indeed, they were right.

It was predicted after the initial battle was over, Iraqis would shower us with rainbows and gumdrops.

And they did. The elected president of Iraq has also thanked the coalition for the liberation. And the elected government has asked the US to stay in Iraq. How exactly did you think the gratitude would materialize?

It was predicted the entire operation would cost no more than $50 billion. It's in the hundreds of billions of dollars now. A billion dollars a week.

I don't remember any predictions about the costs. Source?

It was predicted the insurgency would be short lived. Cheney said it was in it's 'last throes.' And that was over a year ago.

So what? Israel has been fighting terrorism for 60 years. Iraq is the second democracy in the region and will likely have the same problem.

Giving up Iraq because the terrorists are not is a stupid strategy.

It was predicted Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and more. Iraqi oil production is below what it was pre-war.

Actually, the only connection made between the war and oil money as made by the left, not Bush's supporters.

It was claimed Iraq and al Qaida were connected. Truth is, Saddam hated al Qaida and bin Laden, and would never allow them in his country. He wouldn't allow any outside force to exert influence in Iraq.

It was claimed that Iraq and terrorism were connected. And they were. Incidentally, why do you think the terrorists are now attacking Iraqis but weren't doing so when Saddam was in power?

It was predicted (by Rumsfeld) the war would doubtfully last more than 6 months.

The war is over. What we find here is terrorism against the population. That will probably remain for a good few years.

So what's your proposal? Hand over Iraq to the terrorists?