Originally Posted By gadzuux Our freedom and liberty isn't threatened by any other nation, ergo our soldiers, whatever they're doing, are not protecting them. Ironically, the greatest threat to our freedoms comes from bush himself, whose administration has been wholly responsible for the biggest assault on civil liberties that our nation has ever known. As for people who die by car accidents or smoking - you're not seriously putting that forth as a valid argument, are you? If so, I can see how you can be so easily snowed by the likes of bush and boortz.
Originally Posted By DAR I have no problem criticizing the President but criticizing every single thing is a little extreme. It was extreme when Clinton was criticized for everything did too.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/14/johnson.ill/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/12/14/johnson.ill/index.html</a> So the update on Johnson is that he's in critical condition after surgeyr, which is normal after such an episode. Pertinent item from the linked article- there is no procedure in place to remove incapacitated senators. Johnson is a senator until he decides he's out.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom gadzuux I understand your "Bash Bush at all costs attitude". But I really fail to comprehend where your coming from. Are you trying to somehow state that we should surrender in Iraq? And that this is somehow going to save lives despite two years of evidence of Shite vs Sunni killing to suggest otherwise? As far as Americans are to be concerned, I clearly point out the daily mortality of Americans from both motor vehicle accidents AND smoking. 3,000 people died on 911. That was in ONE DAY. Heck, even the 911 Commission said there was no question that there would be future terrorist attacks it would just be a question of when. Our borders remain unsecure. Hundreds of Americans die each day on our nations roads and from smoking. But somehow its beyond horrors that some American citizens actually place their lives on the line on foreign soil to protect our nation's individual Freedom and Liberty. If you or your party were so concerned about Americans dieing then why is YOUR party fighting our nations attempts at securing our nations borders? Why is YOUR party trying to turn our Social Security System into an International relief fund? Why is an ex-President of YOUR party blaming middle east tensions on Israeles?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Pertinent item from the linked article- there is no procedure in place to remove incapacitated senators. Johnson is a senator until he decides he's out.<< I don't know about South Dakota, but in some states he could be the subject of a recall campaign. But it would take months to organize a petition drive and get the matter onto the ballot, and with any luck he'll have recovered before then.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> But I really fail to comprehend where your coming from. Are you trying to somehow state that we should surrender in Iraq? << There is no surrender. There is no victory. There is no defeat. We're stuck in the middle of two warring factions, trying to play referee. The shiites are going to win. So what are we doing there? This means that there will never be any semblence of a stable democratic government in iraq. That was our original intent (sort of), but you can forget it - it's never gonna happen. So what are we doing there? No one (and I mean NO ONE) actually believes that we're going to "defeat terrorism" by battling it out with insurgents in iraq - it's all irrelevant to terrorism, and to 9/11 for that matter. So what are we doing there? There may be things we can do to reduce deaths from smoking and car accidents, but it has no relevance to this discussion. Neither does social security. But since you bring it up, it's a democratic program - not a republican one. Efforts to dismantle it are coming from your side of the aisle. And you continue to bang away about "freedom and liberty". Perhaps you can expound on that and explain how exactly iraq, or any country, is a threat to them.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder KT, let me try and put it in perspective for you. I voted for Bush II, twice. I have never felt more betrayed by an elected official since my second vote than I have by anyone else. It isn't a matter of blind party loyalty, but a mtter of doing what's right. Even if we were to assume Saddam had WMDs, the threat was not imminent that he'd use them, despite what anyone else might say. Hell, the Administration was divided on their mere existence, so how could anyone say with certainty he was about to pull the trigger? Knowing that, since we started this war, we had all the time we needed to do this right. A good lawyer knows what his summation to the jury will be before the trial starts. Similarly, we should have had a beginning, middle and end for this war in place before the first plane took off. History has now shown we did not have one clue about how this war was supposed to go in the middle and end. Moreover, Bush II's own father is on record saying that when he had the chance to take out Saddam, he passed because he knew we'd be in a no-win situation after that. Bush II blew off his old man. When people say this war didn't need to happen, they mean this war didn't need to happen THIS WAY, as in the way it unfolded. Sure, there are people who didn't want it at all, but most of us who say it didn't have to happen mean it didn't have to happen so haphazardly, with the blind leading the blind. We're all for defending our country, and it comes across as more than a little insulting and condescending when you say things like "But somehow its beyond horrors that some American citizens actually place their lives on the line on foreign soil to protect our nation's individual Freedom and Liberty" and "If you or your party were so concerned about Americans dieing then why is YOUR party fighting our nations attempts at securing our nations borders? Why is YOUR party trying to turn our Social Security System into an International relief fund? Why is an ex-President of YOUR party blaming middle east tensions on Israeles?" That's all a load of crap and you can put it back where crap comes from. Sorry to be so rude, but YOUR PARTY is going to have to come up with some other way to defend this war instead of raising issues that have nothing to do with it or questioning a person's overall patriotism because we don't believe every belch that is uttered by Bush or follow every stubborn directive. We question because we ARE patriotic and we DO care about the soldiers who are being needlessly sacrificed minute by minute in the name of a war we CANNOT WIN as presently fought. Which brings us to the Iraq Study Group. A highly qualified and respected bi-partisan panel issues their recommendations, and after a much anticipated wait, Bush blows it off. HE DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE, but he does it anyway, because it is now evident the only way he would endorse it is if the study embraced the policy already in place. Bush is now alienating the base of support that was willing to cut him a break if he followed the panel's lead. His attitude has now been cemented as arrogant and stubborn, unable to listen to advice. There's a passage in one of Woodward's recent books related by one of Bush's senior advisers. I think it was Rice. She prefaced a statement with "Mr. President, you need ..." Bush snapped back "Don't tell me what I need." Hell man, it was HER JOB to tell him that, and that's how he routinely reacts to advice. He only wants to hear things that support his uninformed view of the world. McCain describes him as "intellectually lazy". So yeah, KT, Bush is going to get criticized. He is going to get ridden, and his own behavior is going to invite more of it. Instead of becoming more statesman like in his second term, he's going to solidify his position as one of the worst decision makers in the last 50 years this country has ever seen. It's easy to get this way about someone when you've been betrayed.
