The attacks in Mumbai were sobering. I'm confident we'll see India ratchet up their security. It only takes one time. Remember the words of Richard Clarke after our 'one time.' "Your government failed you."

You are correct. Radical Islam is real. And that makes the fear-mongering even more dangerous. It is the accusations that Democrats can't protect the nation. It is rallying the troops and alienating the rest of the world with the gross generalizations of calling nations part of an 'axis of evil.' As if a few wing-nut leaders represent the sentiment of an entire people...they sure did after that stupid comment.

And you'll have heard "the war on terror" for the last time on Jan. 20, 2009. Because it is washed up. It is a silly catch-phrase used to herd the sheep in the support of an unwarranted war. We will always be at war with the terrorists but the silly Bush-isms have had there day.

And posts like this fuel the fear-mongering. You should have stopped writing after the first 3 paragraphs.

"Radical Islam is real"

"an unwarranted war"

I am not sure you really know where you stand on this. If radical islam is real, then the war is not unwarranted.

And what would you have the war on terror be called?

"The war on misunderstood Muslims"?

Or how about,

"The extreme vandalism against the Religion of Peace"?

Or would you rather we don't talk about it all. Would it better if we all held hands and just Hoped and Changed?

Is it better if we stick our heads in the sand and wait for angry Muslims to stop hating us?

What is the solution then , if killing the terrorists is not it?

What should Bush have done?

And you know that regardless of what he had done, you'd still be angry about.

Further:

There is no evidence India will ratchet anything up.

Over 4000 people in India have died in Jihadi attacks since 2004.

I envy your hope Same.

But it is not founded in fact or reality.

Sorry to track you over here Sam but I couldn't let this go.

"It is the accusations that Democrats can't protect the nation. "

Obama validated this by choosing a republican to run defense. Democrats have a hard time protecting the nation because they fail to understand the nuances of military power.

I appreciate the humor in renaming the war on terror. But I was thinking more along the lines of... "the war on terrorists, not on a country who we think is linked to terrorists."

And to your question: "What should Bush have done?"

So glad you asked! He should not have gone to war with Iraq. The containment doctrine was working with Desert Fox. No WMDs were being made. We were blowing everything up off the international radar and all signs point to Iraq giving up on it.

He should have realized that the Iraqi economy was far to dilapidated to invade and take control of. The US got blamed for a lot of the infrastructure problems that weren't really our problem.

He should have put a lid on the hawks in his cabinet. Granted, there were many, but he is the Commander in Chief and he gave in. Bush himself is harmless. I believe him to be a well-meaning fella that got promoted way above his level of competence based on a pretty good rolodex of political contacts. But at the end of the day, history will largely forget Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and even Cheney. History will crucify Bush for many things but the biggest is Iraq.

And if I'm wrong and he should have gone in, well, that is another conversation but I've got a lot of beef about how we went about our business once we got there. That might be where we agree the most on Iraq.

And Ryan, check your facts, buddy. Gates is not a Republican and never has been.

My facts are fine. Check yours!
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/12/gates_i_conside.html

http://www.nndb.com/people/129/000055961/

Do you need anything else? How about the quote from him:
"I felt when I was at the CIA that as a professional intelligence officer, like a military officer, I should be apolitical, so I didn't register with a party," he said, adding,"... I consider myself a Republican. Until yesterday, all of my senior appointments have been for Republicans."

Google could have saved you on that one.

So Sam that then begs the question. Since I was correct in asserting Gates is a Republican, does that validate my point, since you thought the facts pointing the other way invalidated my point?

But simply saying "we should not have gone to Iraq" does not answer the question of what should have been done. That is just an easy, popular thing to say right now. Despite the fact that for several years leading up to 2003 the possibility of an Iraqi invasion was very real. Madeline Albright was talking about "regime change" long before Bush was.

And as far as containment working, I guess that all depends on the definition of "working". If you mean that Saddam was prevented from vacationing in Cuba, then yes, it was working.

But while he was in his box he was able to fund, train, and harbor international terrorists. He stole billions of dollars from the UN oil for food program, while mocking, ignoring, and defying every resolution and sanction the UN and the US imposed on him.

"So if the Iraqi status quo was unacceptable—and it was—what were President Bush’s options in March 2003? Three come to mind: He could have asked the U.N. to lift the sanctions on Iraq, and thereby reward Saddam for his non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement; he could have demanded Saddam dissolve his government, pick up his homicidal brood at the airport, and go into exile; or he could have invaded Iraq to oust Saddam. Bush tried the second option. When Saddam refused to depart, he moved on to the third."

Read the entire article. It offers some nice insight into the lead up, but also the reasons for going into Iraq, including the favorite thing for opponents of the war to point to: WMDs


I will add this about WMDs.

The entire world was convinced that Iraqi WMDs were an imminent threat.

For example, who said concerning Saddam and Iraq:

"Mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass
destruction, he will deploy them, he will use them."

No, it wasn't Bush, Cheney or any other "hawks". It was President Bill Clinton in 1999.

I suppose I will address your Bush=simpleton argument as well.

First of all that is not even good insight. It is not an intelligent argument. It is a silly Lefty, childish insult that has very little merit.

The Bush is Stupid point of view is lame and weak, and frankly undermines any other legitimate point you might make.

Feel free to attack his policy and ideas and his actions (which you do). But honestly, the Village Idiot argument is ridiculous.

Sorry Ryan. I should have googled that. I guess the fact that he has NEVER registered as a Republican threw me off.

I think we can both agree that Obama made the right pick by keeping him on for another year. He has bipartisan respect and that is an obviously crucial role right now. He'll be choosing a Democrat in 2010.

From Griz, But while he was in his box he was able to fund, train, and harbor international terrorists.

I read the article you linked and it was great...but evidence of this point is what I am dying to see! My whole outlook on this changes if you can show me this. Seriously.

And the Bush=simpleton argument...I don't know what you want me to say. I don't want to regurgitate lefty rhetoric but after 8 years of exposure to him that is what I'm left with. I wish we could chat about this face to face... In all sincerity, I just don't think he's that bright. He's never claimed to be. He's never proven himself to be. He's done many things to lead us to believe that he isn't. Like, before he was in the public spotlight at the age of 30, drinking and driving with children and a wife tucked in their beds. Can we just please agree that that is the sign of an individual who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed? But I'll leave that argument out for now on. Ya'll know how I feel.

So your evidence that he isn't 'bright' is an example of using poor judgment?

Is that how they teach you to measure IQ at your school?

By 'bright' I assume you mean IQ, but you seem to be equating it with judgment. That seems to be a common mistake within the democratic party. The two concepts are very different.

Saddam and Terrorists:

Start here. And then go here for details.

But the question comes to mind:

Didn't Saddam's actions in Iraq, and to the Iraqi people warrant him being removed, regardless of any connection to terrorists?

The man himself was a terrorist.

How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died at his hands?

A simple "saddam and terrorists" google search yielded 3.8 million results. So the information is out there. And interestingly, the voices who claim Saddam was clean of any terrorist connections seem to have the initials NYT. Weird.

As far as Bush goes, consider this:

After 8 years of exposure to Bill Clinton did he do anything that would justify anyone calling him "bright"?

And yet nobody calls him a simpleton or the village idiot.

It seems to me that elite=intelligent for you. Bush is a man's man. He likes his ranch, his cowboy boots and his mountain bike. He mispronounces words once in a while and stumbles over a phrase now and again.

So he's an idiot?

Honestly, Obama, The Anointed One, has a hard time forming a sentence when it isn't scrolling slowly in front of him on a teleprompter.

And yet everyone thinks he is some sort of political savant.

I really don't care if my President is accepted into some elitist East Coast Academic Intellectual Society.

I want someone who can lead.

And GWB, when it mattered most, rose up as a great leader. He united the country after 9/11. He inspired us with his speeches and his courage.

And he made good on his promise to hunt down terrorists wherever they might be hiding, including Iraq. A promise that 85% of America was ready to personally assist him with.

It seems an enormous stretch to even imagine Obama doing something like that. Instead he will calmly tell us that he is "looking into it" and "will get back to us" and that he has his "best people on the job".

And after the cameras stop rolling he will flee to the Rose Garden for a panic laden smoke.

Finally, it is a bit of cheap shot to cite Bush's 40 year old DUI, and not mention Obama's cocaine snorting and pot smoking.

LOL- you're first link is to Bush's White House and the second doesn't even work??? That's what I was afraid of.

And no, his actions didn't warrant US action regardless of any terrorism. Ask Ryan about that. We had a discussion recently about Darfur vs. Iraq and the death toll. Ryan eloquently explained that some countries are in our interest to assist. Some aren't. I'll let you two sort that out.

...still waiting for some evidence.

Did you read the information at the white house information page? Just because it is Bush's site does not make the information any less true.

Remember that part about 3.8 million google results?

Or do I need to spoon feed you?

The second link didn't work because I coded it wrong.

Try this.

And this.

And this.

And then go here for 3.8 million more resources.

So are you not accepting the fact that he paid Palestinian 'martyr' families the cash award?

How about this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm



Also Bush wasn't alone in his pursuit of Iraq. Those of our allies with guts and the same intelligence (not IQ) were mislead as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

And here are a bunch of people on your side that said the same thing as Bush but didn't have the courage/power to act on their words.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

So if Bush is "dumb" I think you have to expand the net of your definition.

And as far as choosing Iraq over Darfur...

Both are tragic situations involving suffering. Iraq broke international laws so we had casus beli to attack. Justifying the suffering of one group of people by saying, "Well we are letting other groups of people suffer, so why help these guys," is a horrible way to approach foreign diplomacy.

And one more

I appreciate the time you guys spent with those links. I read, or at least skimmed through all of them.

I don't usually take the time to read through those kinds of sites so it was good for me.

After going over them, I'm left with the confirmation that a) Saddam was a bad guy, b) he did aid terrorists on some level, and c)none of it warranted the invasion, especially without more international help. We are shouldering 90% of the combat work over there.

This stuff Saddam is charged with is no different than what the Lebanese, Pakistanis, Afghans and yes, even Saudi Arabians have been charged with. We are spreading ourselves way to thin.

I guess you guys know by now that you represent the far right wing of your party on this issue and that most folks have recognized what a mistake this was (I've heard Sean Hannity be more critical of Bush's Iraq than you guys).

And I had a great time the other night googling stuff on Bush's intelligence. Classic arguments from both sides. So blessed to have YouTube. I'll be able to spit and swear to my children that what they are seeing actually happened. You have to have seen some of those Bushisms live to believe they really happened. A possible favorite (quite possibly the best 30 seconds you'll ever spend):
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=4&f=00&tt=9&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DB5xVRXLgLxw

So because evil exists in one area, let's let it prevail everywhere! Great philosophy.

If only Saddam had been more evil, if only he had killed more people, if only he had helped more terrorists. If only he had been more of an international threat.

Then we could have felt good about removing him.

If only...