LEFT OF THE RIGHT: President Bush's Approval Rating Is So Low Because Americans Hate a Loser

Where does that put Congress? Last week they were at 18% approval. Almost half that of Bush.

I'm talking about Bush's approval ratings, If you want to talk about congress, go write your own article.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/gallup-approval.html

Lowest rating EVER! OMG!

And Congress has to run for election again. Bush doesn't.

Approval ratings are for people who have to worry about running for election.

If a Republican wins the next presidential election, will your angry bad bile still be directed at Bush or whoever wins?

Devin I dont pay much attention to approval ratings. Although I agree with some of what you said. I dont think this comes down to a repub or dem debate....I think most people, regardless of their political affiliation are tired of the war. And I disagree with the statement that says the dems arent wimps they just dont like losing...well who does?

Other than that I am fine with the basics. I think the next president....whether repub or dem better do something about the war....the American people are getting tired of promises not being kept and politicians doing what they want despite what is best for their constituants.

Ok fine,
The low approval rating for congress are for the same reason Bush's are so low. They are losing their fight to end the war. But of course you leave a lot out of it don't you. Congressional approval ratings have always been historically, significantly lower than the presidents. And I gurantee you that if the Democrats had a large enough majority to over ride Bush's veto of virtually everything they've tried to do, the will of the people to bring this GD war to an end would be well under way and congressional approval ratings would be through the roof.

Devin, I appreciate this article and much of the sentiment behind it. I do not share all of your opinions.

My dislike for Bush, his administration, and his supporters has nothing to do with losing. I don't like to lose, but don't dislike myself or my team if I put forth my best effort in an honest race and still lose. Then, I am disappointed but still have respect myself and my team.

Also, I (and others) was not 100% behind doing 'whatever', immediately after the attacks. Not for one second then or now did I think killing thousands of innocent people and destroying the countries and lives of thousands of others was a solution or a justifiable retaliation -- and certainly not before we knew the full story behind what happened that day and who all was involved. I don't think we have that information yet, because too many people were willing and anxious to accept the story we were fed without question.

What I find abhorrent about this administration is their total disregard for the truth, the constitution, freedom, our rights, the people in this country, and the world.

Well said Sandy,
I agree, that's why I and some in the federal government advocated a covert surgical operation to bring the criminals to justice. Unfortunatley, the powers that be were not listening to those voices.

What's your solution to the war? What's going to happen to radical Islam once we leave?

Can radical Islam live peacefully in a world with personal and ecomonic freedoms?

Would France, Germany, and Russia partake in a solution in Iraq if a Democrat was President? Or are they still mad because they were on the take during the whole Saddam United Nations Oil for Palaces Program? I don't think Europe is too eager to get in and help. They are limp when it comes to Radical Islam too. It's more than just Iraq, it's radical Islam.

I'll ask this again, no one seems to want to answer this question. I'm sure if it's liberal guilt holding them back or maybe they just don't want to think this.

Devin,

Can radical Islam live peacefully in a world with personal and ecomonic freedoms?

We have no business in Iraq. Hussien was contained and nuettered. But since the reality is that we are there, you are right that we need a some kind of solution.

First of all, we need to be placing a lot more of our resources into training the Iraqi security forces and we should be doing it outside of Iraq, safe from terrorist attacks. Secondly, I advocate a partitioning of the country into three autonomous regions that would emulate historical borders as closely as pssible. This would require a significant amount of relocation, but hell ,that's happening anyway isn't it. Finally, a UN sponsored effort to bring the fighting factions as well as representatives from around the Middle East to the diplomatic table for some serious talks about the core issues facing that region and what the people of that region want to do about it. Hard stuff, but it has to be done whether or not we stay militarily.

Hypothetically I suppose if radical Christians like the KKK and the Arian Nations can do it, I guess the radical Muslims could too. But wait a minute, hasn't it been diligent POLICE work that keeps those radical Christian groups in check? I wonder how things would go if another country decided to occupy, say... Mississippi and Alabama under the guise of a war on Christian radicals, but I digress.

How many airplanes would Christian radicals hijack if it weren't for "dilligent police work"? How many subway bombs would Christian radicals set off if it weren't for "dilligent police work"?

I don't think many. But you can, so go ahead.

So radical Christians would cause the same amount of damage, terror and killing in this world if it wasn't for "dilligent police work"?

WOW.

No Gary the radical Christians are different....they just blow up abortion clinics.

I guess Americans feel the same way about the Democratic Congress as well...

As far as Congress' approval rating, don't forget who's been blocking the Dems. attempts to get any meaningful legislation passed. Let's also not forget who has been using his power of veto and threats of it to do the same!

You are naive aren't you Gary. If you think these guys aren't capapble of serious terrorism, I guess you've never heard of McVeigh and the Oklahoma city bombing. In the years leading up to that terrorist attack he was invloved in the survivalist movement which has very close ties with many white supremicist groups.

McVeigh was a radical Christian? He was on a Christian "Jihad"?

I don't like people bombing abortion clinics also. So, if there was not "dilligent police work" Christians would be bombing abortion clinics at the rate of Muslims blowing up embasies, buses, and car bombings?

Dan, that may be true for some things. But take Iraq for example. That is something the Dems could have ended when they first took office. True, they dont have the power to overturn a veto, but they can submit pieces of legislation that have withdraw dates on them. They can keep doing that, and eventually, the President will be forced to sign it because he will be desperate for resources. They could also kill any war funding bill and starve the war of the resources it needs, forcing a withdraw. The Dems have a lot of power. But for reasons unknown to me, and 76% of America, they chose not to use them.

ty phoon,
It is the possibilty that any funding cut-offs may cause the security of our troops to be compromised that keeps them cutting off the flow of money. And It is my opinion that my Democratic brethren who are espousing that idea are wrong, we cannot and should not do that.

Devin, that is an excuse that many anti-war advocates in Congress use when they vote for another war funding bill. But the military shifts money around all the time. When troop rotations began, the money that would usually be spent on sending troops there would be used to get stuff out. It is complete BS to say that the Dems only vote for war funding bills because of security for the troops.

ty phoon,
Assigning what you want their motives to be doesn't make it so. After the shanagans this miscreat has pulled, I wouldn't put it passed him to use a funding limitation to give the Democrats a black eye if he thought it would benefit his agenda. After all, he's been willing to sacrifice going on 4 thousand of our most precious resource... our citizens.

ty,
By the way, where have you been? I don't think I've seen you on my threads in a while have I. I've always enjoyed your posts. Despite being on opposite sides, I find your posts reasonable and coherent. Your are a most intelligent and worthy opponent.

Gary,


YES!!!

I don't think it's the losing that bothers us as much as the lying and clamping down on opposition .
The only way out is to cut the funding and demand a withdrawal .
The decider will never act without being pushed hard and this congress better get on with it or there will be more changes in Nov 2008.

Devin it is hard to write the book on Iraq yet. Midway though many conflicts we were losing. We need to dig deeper as a people and realize some fights do not end as quickly as our attention spans. Congress has a lower approval rating than the President at 18% because all they can talk about is ending the war. They have no plan for the aftermath or how to continue to combat terrorism. They are also dishonest. Murtha earmark for an organization that he dosent even if it exists.

sorry typo "even know if it exists."

Devin, I was attending school in DC for a while, and they just sent me back to Guam. I have not had a lot of time to be on Gather to respond. Thanks for your concern, though. We may not agree, but at least we can be agreeable.

All I know is that the Dems have the power to end the war. Why they dont use that power, I dont know. It has something to do with will power, and I dont think the Dems have any will power. I agree with you that a lot of lives, American lives, have been needlessly lost. But it is time that our leaders make up their mind. We all know what Bush and many republicans think. But we get a lot of mixed signals from the Dems. THey are against the war, but the next moment, they give Bush another $100 billion. The two Democratic Senators I respect the most are Leiberman, and, amazingly, Kucinich. Those two have strong opinions, and they practice what they preach. The rest of the Democrats, and Congress in general, can learn a lot from them.

I think Edwards approach of a slow measured withdrawal with the Iraqi's understanding that they must take responsibility for their own security because an indefinate dependence on the U.S. is just not sustainable nor fair to the American people.

Opposing the war, and funding it, are not mutually exclusive. All you have to do is realize that the troops were sent out undermanned, underequipped, and underfunded to see why those funds need to continue. If we don't pay the bills, more of America's finest will be killed.

Cutting off funding would make our congresspeople murderers (or at least accessories).

Jeannie, as I said, the Military's budget is never set in stone. Money gets shifted around all the time. Remember a few years ago, the Comanche Helicopter project was cancled? Well, the over 10 billion dollars that was set aside for that program went to other programs. If the War was starved of money, the military would take money from other programs, like R&D or the purchase of new choppers, tanks, or other stuff, and put it towards getting troops out. They would be forced to. Thats what they did during Vietnam. If you can find credible evidence that says Congress's defunding of the war in Vietnam killed even more US soldiers, I might believe this argument when applied to Iraq. But even if that was true, the Democrats can still end the war by sending the President funding bills with timetables attached. Eventually, the President will be forced to sign them. The Dems can end this war, but for some reason, they wont. I think I know why, but I dont like to think that the Dems are that desperate.

Devin:
You are so misled it's not even funny...
How you can compare Radical Muslims (who are really about 10% of the faith, which equals about 100,000,000 Muslims) to a couple radical groups like the KKK and Arian Nation (who only claim to be Christian) is beyond me. You are so ingorant of history it's not even funny. The Muslims who control Al Queda have not "highjacked" their religion but in fact are following many of the commandments that are laid out. Zawahiri and Bin Laden have written many treatise arguing for the justification of suicide bombing that kill innocent women and children and terrorism in general based on Islamic Jurisprudence. There can be no such claims made for the KKK or Arian Nation regarding Christian theology. You are so ingorant of reality, you are forgetting where you freedoms come from. The western way of thought and Democracy itself came form the development of Christian jurisprudence.

I know that you will have an automatic reaction that rejects that statement, but I would like you to think about and try to find something in democracy that contradicts Christian theology.

Meanwhile, maybe you should pick up a book about Radical Islam so that you can better understand that we are not fighting an enemy that is just "upset" that we are "opressing" them. It goes much deeper than that and is pretty apperent to anyone who can actually read or bothers to study Middle East history.

Chip, the Dems blaming the Republicans and saying that they are sresponsible for continuing the war is a bunch of bull. The Dems, if they wanted to, can prevent any spending bill concerning the war from reaching the President. They cannot over ride a veto, but they control half the votes anc can kill any bill. The Dems could do that, but they wont. It's not the Republicans fault all the time.

The dumbocraps ARE spineless. All they have to do to stop this war, is not fund it any more. Just don't bring it to the floor. They are too cowardly, and standing back from their responsibility, because they are afraid they will be seen as anti troops. You have to take a chance if you want to do the right thing. The republibots probably will use that against them in the general election, but "we the people" will remember which way they decided.

Isaac,
When are going to form a coherent argument and stop these personal attacks against me. You Republicans think that if you say something often enough it will become true, but it doesn't. Even your numbers are rediculous. If the Muslim radicals make up 10% there would be 150 million radicals not 100. But after a lot of research I found that virtually no one has a realistic handle on exactly what percentage of the total Muslim world could be classified as "radical." And I guess if you calim I'm so misled, you'll have to state that 70% of the American people are just as stupid as I am. Wait a minute, if we make up 70% of the people, there must be a lot of misled Republicans as well. Gees Isaac, when are YOU ever going to understand, you are the one being misled.

The military has done an incredible job in Iraq, especially in the latest Surge. I also think that the President has been unfairly savaged by the American population. The Left is particularly ruthless in its extremely vicious and underhanded attacks.

Rasmussen polling has Mr. Bush at 38%, and stable. Far better than most of the other political figures today.

Bret,
With Warner and Pace coming out recommending withdrawals of our troops, I'd say your argument that it's all the Democrats is all wet my friend. You Bush supporters are getting fewer and farther in between. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP!!!!! George W. Bush is a failed president desperately holding onto a failed foreign policy. And citing a single poll, especially THE one that is at the upper extreme of all the polls is a biased way of looking at it. When I cite this very poll, I cited the average of 30%, not the lowest which was 17%. So you can stick that in your ear.

Devin -

First of all, Rasmussen is the most quoted poll out there because it's the most Centrist..........that's why I use them. If I wanted big, unreasonable numbers, I'd go right to the Republican National Committee site and quote their numbers. I'd rather be in the middle when I quote poll numbers. I know this is a foreign concept to you, so watch and learn...........and stop quoting the DailyKos, TruthOut.org, MediaMatters, and all those other blatantly propagandist sites as though they were true and unbiased.

Second, I'm fully awake - I just don't buy the nonsense you try to play off as the genuine article. Its just too damn Left Wing to be believed. Remember, more than half the country identify themselves as Conservative or Independent :

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
number_of_americans_refusing_to_
identify_with_gop_or_dems_reaches_new_high

Mr. Bush is only at your low number at Left Wing gossip sites, Devin........which apparently you read and believe.

Devin:
Lets being with the easy stuff. Many "estimates", at least the ones good enough to be used by the Phd.'s that I read, (and that is truly all they really are, but even if it was 5%, were still looking at a huge number) is somewhere between 10% and 15%. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (again, an estimate) which would put the actual figure between 120,000,000 and 180,000,000. I can't beleive I have to explain that to you, apperently your not as intelligent as I thought you were (or perhaps you just like wasting my time by trying to point out errors in my posts when in reality I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Either way, just because 70% of Americans who answer their phone and are willing to answer a question regarding whether they want to keep our soldiers in Iraq by saying "uhhh, no", doesn't mean that people who actually understand the situation are 70-30 in favor of defeat and retreat (thank goodness not everyone has the democrat's brand of patriotism).

Also, you keep referring to Warner as saying we should pull out troops. When in reality he said we should try bringing home 5,000 troops by Christmas to perhaps light a fire under the Iraqi's butts. He also reitterated that he wouldn't support democratic legislation to pull troops out or defund the war. It also apperently doesn't matter that Petreaus and other commanders are saying that pulling out any troops by Christmas would be stupid.

I know you are afraid of an American victory... The only way you are going to be satisfied is if America retreats from Iraq and the bloodbath ensues (you think 3,800 American lives is bad now, just think about millions or Iraqi's, or do they not matter to you), regardless of whether it's the right thing to do.

I think i understand your logic though... "We are finally making progress in Iraq, so what we should do is pull out troops, allowing the terrorists to regain their safe havens, and encourage a much longer, bloodier war..."

Makes perfect liberal sense!!!

Oh, and another thing. If what you consider a "coherant argument" is anything like the ignorant, historically inadequate, hate filled, immature stuff you post, then count me out...

even if we did end up winning this war, it was still started by lies and only for the oil, not to free the iraqi people... its for power and money.

If that is true about Edwards then he can kiss my a$$, I didnt plan on voting for him in the first place.. i just dont like him, i dont trust him, he seems like a fake. Im tired of rich people running for president.

True American:
It is true about Edwards. He has 16 million invested in the Financial group responsibly for forclosing on 34 New Orleans homes in the past year. What a joke...
The only thing is, I have been saying this to Devin for the past 4 or 5 days on his other article about Edwards, but somehow it always seems to escape his reading of my posts. Either he can't read long words like "invested" or he just chooses to not to hear things that don't fit into his preconeived ideas.. (either way, he is still a moron)

Also Rich,
I agree that the Demorats are only doing this for poltical reasons... just sad isn't it? ALso, you can't say Clinton didn't try to help find Bin Laden, after all he did put together an intelligence "team" to try to find and "capture" the crazy killer... isn't that good enough? After all, how dare we actually invade another country that is supporting him and implant a type of governmental system that allows everyone freedom. You are just crazy, it must be for the oil, or the money, or the whatever... it must be because the REpublicans are completely evil!!!!

We won the f-ing war in Iraq. We established a government, we re established their police and military. WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE? We are securing the country for Big Oil.

MISSION ACOMPLISHED - GET OUR TROOPS OUT! how hard is that to understand? The Dems and the Repubs are in this together. Don't expect any thing but what might favor Big Oil and Big Business out of either party.

We need a President that will lead the country back to a Constutional Government. A President that will stop the policies of the last 55 years of trying to police the world and evangalize the world to "democracy". We need an AMERICAN President not a Political Lacky for the UN, WTO, NAFTA, WORLD BANK

Colonel George W. -

So if we won the war, and the war is all about oil, then why are gas prices so high? Shouldn't low gas prices accompany a win like this one in Iraq? If our troops are over in Iraq to secure oil in Iraq, then why are none of the major oil companies deriving any of their revenue from Iraq assets?

I own oil stock in many companies, and I read all the prospectuses when they come out. So far, none reports any significant revenue from Iraq. Why do you think that is, Colonel?

Possibly, Rich, it is because Devin has served this country that he believes what he believes. The myth of the conservative soldier persists and I suppose you have to believe it. It isn't necessarily so.

All of you Republican dullards are so full of it I can barely hold my dinner down. I suppose you'd like to hold every investor in a company that is found to be doing something cold hearted like forclosing on Katrina Victims responsible as they were managing that company. Edwards pulled his investments as sson as he knew what was being reported about that company, but things like that don't interest you because then you couldn't bitch like the old bitties you are. Joe is right Rich, despite your limited mental capacity to understand it. I did serve my country in the military and what Joe is talking about is that despite the Republicans claim, there are plenty of Democrats who are in or have served in the military, even liberal commy bastards like me.

Isaac,
At least I'm not a brain dead, Republican rhetoric regurgitating, cold blooded dimwit like you. Your probably the kind of guy who laughs at homeless and mentally challenged people aren't you.

You guys might think your being smart by backing this criminal that has hijacked our country and is spending our precious soldiers like the Republican controlled congress spent money, but you are only exposing yourselves for the ignorant fools you truly are. GW Bush is THE worst president in the history of this great nation and when he gets taken down for his deeds, I only wish there were some way for you ding dongs to get taken down with him.

Thanks K,
I think one of the most telling flaws in how these guys think is that they actually believe that their take on things is the generally accepted view, and that any "facts" that may indicate otherwise must be somehow manipulated by the liberal media, or a Left wing fabrication, or some other mysterious cause they can't prove, but then cite that it is just how difficult it is to prove as "the proof" it must be true. Wow!

K (I live with 8 males) T s:
Your picture says it all... because you remind me of my 2 year old nephew right before he gets fed....

"My opinion: Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. If you don't agree, you need to take the blinders off and open your mind to the truth."
What the heck are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a Christian walk into a crowded street and blow themselves up while singing "Jesus Loves Me"?
Don't even respond, it's not worth it... just think about your "opinion" before you spit out hateful, uninformed things like that...

Devin:
"Edwards pulled his investments as sson as he knew what was being reported about that company"
Are you suggesting that this was a mistake? That pehaps he just didn't know? If that is the case, then I wouldn't want someone who is so irresponsible with their own money to be in control with the governments money... would you? Seems like he is either a a lier and just pulled out the money to avoid bad publicity, or he is a moron who can't even keep track of his own money... either way, he is still a bad choice to lead this country.

"You guys might think your being smart by backing this criminal that has hijacked our country"
No Devin, I don't. I think I'm smart because I don't agree with you. That is how everyone should gage themselves....

Lets think about this for a moment.. You think that Bush is an evil, seflish, good for nothing, criminal that should be thrown out of the White House and put in prison.... And yet you also think that supporting people like Edwards, who has said he would meet with dictators like Chavez, Achmedinijad, and Kim Jong Ill.

So lets recap: We should imprison Bush because he is evil, and yet support a candidate who sees those dictators (who have killed millions) as rational, peace loving people?
You know what Devin, you really do make me feel smarter... and I thank you for that.

Issac,

"If that is the case, then I wouldn't want someone who is so irresponsible with their own money to be in control with the governments money... would you? "

I can't believe you said that. You fell right into it didn't you.

The fact that Bu$h bankrupted at least one oil company, because he couldn't find any oil in Texas, or that he HAD to have the public pay for his Texas Ranger shiny new stadium, or that he is (in my opinion) guilty of insider trading, regardless of what daddy's SEC says, and how about going from a surplus to a deficit in just 4 short years, giving money away to the richest while the poorest struggle even harder to survive, and how about this one, loosing track of 9 BILLION $ in Iraq, and lets not forget, the Iraq war in general, (didn't need to go there, did we), and the many other ridiculous, moronic, stupid, and idiotic things Bu$h has done WITH OUR MONEY, must mean alot to you then. But wait, you support this idiot Bu$h. There goes YOUR argument about fiscal responsibility, Huh?

Me again Issac,

"He also reitterated that he wouldn't support democratic legislation to pull troops out or defund the war."

He DID NOT. I too watched this interview, and when he was asked if he would support the dems attempt to defund the troops, his response was ambiguous. He said he would make that decision when the proper time came. Thats all he said.

MR. RUSSERT: If the president does not set a timetable, do you reserve the right to break with him and begin supporting efforts to set a congressional timetable?

SEN. WARNER: You know, this president, I know him pretty well. It's a privilege. I remember this Memorial Day, he invited me to go to the ceremonies at Arlington. My wife and I went up. We drove up in the car with him and drove back. And I sensed, as we passed those white crosses after he spoke up there and came back, he feels most sincerely the loss of our forces. No one wants them to come home more than the president of the United States and the first lady. But I'm telling you, he'll have to make that decision. Am I going to suddenly go breaking? I'm going to have to evaluate it and then, as all other senators—we're an independent branch of our government, co-equal in many respects with authority and responsibility—we'll have to make our decision as to what we'll do.

SEN. WARNER: I don't say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider.

President Bush's Approval Rating Is So Low Because Americans Hate a Loser


Since the Democrats have a lower ratings what does that say about them? We must really hate them then.

Comparing congressional numbers, and thats what I'm assuming your talking about, to presidential numbers is apples and oranges. The match up between the presidential candidates would be a better take on which Party the voters are leaning toward in 2008 and all the polls point to the Democrats being THAT Party.

K:
"You don't find radical christianity dangerous? Ever hear of Charles Manson? Ever hear of the Pennsylvania Amish killings? Ever hear the phrase "God made me do it?"
You moron. Just because a killer says that they are a "Christian" doesn't mean that they are one. The difference here is the case being made that it is "ok" to kill people based on one's faith. There is quite a bit of difference between the Christian and Islamic traditions regarding this idea. Christianity at it's core is peace loving and not violent. However, the Islamic religion was spread through the use of the sword for over 1000 years after the life of the "prophet". I know this may be hard for you understand, so I'll try not to use big words...

But open your eyes for a moment and maybe you will realize that its not that simple. How many muslims have come out condemning suicide bombings? how many muslims have come out arguing against the targeting of innocents based on Islamic jurisprudence? ... I'll help you, hardly any!!! That is because the arguements put forth by Bin Laden and Zawahiri are donctrinally sound. While many Muslim's and people in the media wish to protray Islam as the "Religion of Peace", history paints a far dimmer picture. The reality of the fact is that many Muslims do not understand what the holy books of their religions states (much like Christians who don't know what the Bible states) The so called religion of peace has never expressed that term towards any group, faction, or religion that is different from their own. From the 7th century onward, the "religion of peace" has fought for the extermination of the western way of life, including democracy, freedom of thought, Christianity, and CAPITALISM...

Christianity however, has not been at war with these things, but rather embraced them. If you seriously think that radical islam is anything like Christianity, then you are sadly mistaken. The central doctrine of CHristianity is Grace through forgiveness, which has absolutely no meaning in Islam (except for the fact that Allah will give those grace to die in HIS service fighting the infidel).

Denny:
"The fact that Bu$h bankrupted at least one oil company, because he couldn't find any oil in Texas, or that he HAD to have the public pay for his Texas Ranger shiny new stadium,"
What the heck are you talking about? Bush is somehow the ruiner of all good things in the world?
First of all, Bush turned Clinton's "phony" surplus into a debt because he wanted to protect this country... Yeah, I see what you mean, what a jerk!!! I hope he burns in hell for wanting to protect this country from another 9/11.... I wish we had "sit on your hands" Clinton back in office so we could all be happy about a surplus but afriad to ride the bus because our CIA and FBI are unfunded....

"and the many other ridiculous, moronic, stupid, and idiotic things Bu$h has done WITH OUR MONEY"
Yeah... like trying to fund our troops in harms way in Iraq, yeah, what a jerk!!! I wish the democrats would get back into office so they could slash our defense budgit and focus on real threats like global warming!!!

Also, I don't know what your point was with the dialogue regarding Warner.... He will not support democratic legislation because what he talked about the other day was a possible 5,000 soldier withdrawel to kick the Iraqi's in the butt, but not a full scale withdrawel and the bloodbath that will ensue. After all, at least he is willing to put the lives of the Iraqi's people and the security of this country above his political objectives.... Also, i didn't say he said he won't break with the president in that interview, but that he has communicated that to other conservative and republicans...

Thanks for wasting my time...

And Devin, why aren't you reponding to all the posts regarding Edwards blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the well being of the poor?... It's ok, I know he was your hero... too bad he's a joke...

There is nothing more sad than a young person who thinks they can learn while they have their mouth open. Even sadder is a young person who thinks they have nothing more to learn. To give Isaac the benefit of the doubt though, we must assume he probably grew up in a Republican home, steeped in their rhetoric and culture. I must believe this because the alternative is unthinkable.

It's like in the movie "Awakenings" with Robin Williams and Robert Deniro. Williams is talking to an older doctor played by Max von Sydow. Sydow's character had treated many of the patients suffering from catatonic paralysis when they were children and made the statement that while in a catatonic state, there was no consciousness, no thought. Williams asks how he knows that. Sydow responds, "Because the alternative is unthinkable." And for me, a person who possessed the improbable ability to take a critical and completely unbiased look at the Democratic and Republican ideologies and then choose the Republican, would be unthinkable to me.

K:
The point I was making is that there are NO radical Christians. Radical Muslims base there ideology off of the holy book of the faith... No radical Christians can do the same with the Bible... I am sure that you have never read it, or even know that much about history, and that is why I called you a moron... Sorry, I shouldn't have...

I am young, but I am more interested in learning than you apperently are. Right not I am reading a book by Raymond Ibrihim called "the Al Qaeda Reader" which are translations from Bin Laden and Zawahiri's personal writings and treatise that justify suicide bombing and the sort through Islamic Jurisprudence. Wake up man, both you and Devin cannot argue with this, so either learn something about Radical Islam (and realize that there is no such thing as Radical Christianity) or change the subject. None of the "Christians" that you mentioned ever knew anything about the Bible or a personal God, so don't call them Christians. It is quite a bit different when many Islamic teachers and "preists" go around encouraging violence to exterminate the infidels.

So, if you guys want to learn as bad as you claim, then perhaps you will read something on the subject, but somehow I think it was all rhetoric....

"News flash: life isn't all about killing other people and getting rich. Might sound fun and exciting to a young know-it-all punk, but it isn't important--trust me. "
I don't even know where you got this, but comments like this want to make me use the word "moron" again...

"There is a MAJOR difference here" Thats the funny thing about you Bu$hwackers, there's ALWAYS a MAJOR difference. People like you can never be reasoned with. It doesn't matter if I told you that King George I, took his business payroll and gambled it away, you would invent some justification to defend Bu$h. Your blinded by your zeal to have someone like you, a good ol' boy, in the White House, that you will never see him for the failure that he is. And you are right, Edwards is a wennie, but that wennie was spending his OWN money. Your also right about Bu$h knowing what he was spending OUR money on, and for that reason, he must be impeached. It's funny how the Bu$h administration has been putting CEO's and CFO's in prison for "funny business" while at the same time, bleeding this country dry. He should go to prison too. (remember the 9 billion) Right? Where do you think all those billions are going to, cronies, cohorts, and buds.

And btw, most very wealthy people like Edwards, Soros, Bu$h, Cheney, and on and on, don't know where some of their money is invested, hence the name "blind trust". But then I bet you'll say, "teh republicans don't do taht".

Grow up and see your man Bu$h for what he is. Hell, I'll bet ANYONE, democrap or republibot, could do a better job than this idiot at keeping this country safe. He's just been lucky.

And before you start questioning my patriotism, (thats usually the next step you republibots got to, to try and SILENCE someone) I took the same oath in 1973 when I swore into the Navy that Bu$h took in the National Guard and as the so called president. My oath didn't have an ending date on it. I meant it for life. And Bu$h is destroying America from within.

He even said himself, that he is a failure. Right after 9/11, he stated in a speech, that if we change our way of living, the terrorists have won. And then went about making the most drastic changes in this countries history, most unConstitutional. So as per Bu$h's own words the terrorists have won.

No, I'm not that stupid, but by all standards, we are loosing. But, then the "let's stay the course" strategy is working so well. Huh? My question to you is, when they kill the Constitution, and make this a total police state, will you be with us, or against us, Americans ?

Denny:
"It's funny how the Bu$h administration has been putting CEO's and CFO's in prison for "funny business" while at the same time, bleeding this country dry."
What the hell are you talking about? Your comments make me feel so smart....

"I'll bet ANYONE, democrap or republibot, could do a better job than this idiot at keeping this country safe. He's just been lucky."
What is funny is that most intell people would say that Bush's support for stronger intelligence abilities is the ONLY thing keeping this country safe, and that the only reason 9/11 occured was because there was no cross communication between branches and Clinton cut their funding... But that is just the people that are "in the know", so to speak, I'm sure they're part of the conspiracy...

"And Bu$h is destroying America from within."
By giving our security services the abilities they need to be sucessful in thwarting terrorist attacks? yeah, I see what you mean...

"Right after 9/11, he stated in a speech, that if we change our way of living, the terrorists have won. And then went about making the most drastic changes in this countries history, most unConstitutional. So as per Bu$h's own words the terrorists have won."
Are you serious? Bush said those words to a mourning nation that wanted to be comforted... if you seriously would not have wanted our government to change after 9/11, then you are a moron. As for our everyday lives, do you live in fear? i don't, and based on the polls, I would say that most of the American people have forgotten what happened on 9/11 and just want us to quit in the middle east (which is what we have been doing for the last 30 years)... So, I would say that Bush has been a very successful president "as per Bush's own words".

"My question to you is, when they kill the Constitution, and make this a total police state, will you be with us, or against us, Americans ?"
Disregarding the stupidity of the first part of your sentence I have to say:
That depends, will you be for or against the theocratic Islamic governments that are the alternative?

"No, I'm not that stupid, but by all standards, we are loosing."
You would love that wouldn't you. You refuse to listen to those coming back from Iraq and saying good things, even the soldiers who are saying that we need to "stay the course" and win. You would love to see our soldiers come home after a defeat so that you could say, "see, i told you so"... Thank goodness not all Americans have the democrats brand of patriotism!

"What the hell are you talking about?"
Your comments make me feel so smart...." Well if you don't know what i'm talking about, your not too smart.

"You would love that wouldn't you." What I would love, is to get my country back from you neo cons. As far as me loving to loose, you are an idiot. We started loosing the war on terror (the one I would "love" to WIN) the minute we went into Iraq, you know, the country that did not attack us on 9/11, had NO weapons of mass destruction, (deception), and had no ties to Al Qaeda.

"even the soldiers who are saying that we need to "stay the course" and win."
I heard one of the talking heads say the other day that the soldiers are a reflection of the rest of the country, and that not ALL of them support this war. When you neo cons use that kind of language, it shows your stupidity. You speak like ALL the troops are on your side.
"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

I'll tell you what I tell my kids "just because you say it, doesn't make it true".

BTW, even the neo cons that helped start this "illegal war" don't support it anymore. "In an article first appearing on the website of Vanity Fair in November 2006, Ken Adelman ( he's one of the idiots that said we would be treated as liberators) wrote that he regrets urging military action in Iraq and feels that he overestimated the abilities of the Bush administration leadership." Hell, you can't get any more partisan than this moron. He's a republican. Look it up.

And as for, will I be for an Islamic rule, no, I am an American. I don't want Islamic, Jewish, or Christians ruling my country. They ALL suck.

And last but not least, there is no winning in Iraq. These people have hated each other for centuries. Do you know why they hate each other? Nothing Bu$h will do can change that. It is not Al Qaeda that is the big problem, it's a "CIVIL WAR, STUPID", that's what is killing our soldiers. And the funniest thing of all, some in the Bu$h administration are leaning toward a strong man dictator that can stop the "civil war". You know, kinda like Saddam. You don't know near as much as I do about this subject, so peddle your wares some where else.

No qualifications, I just stay up to the minute as to what this fascist Bu$h is doing. I'm a news junkie (I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox all day while working, and Link tv at night) I read and research on the net daily. I get several emails daily from "reliable" sources, that don't have an agenda to "brainwash" the population. The only reason I said that is, I'm going by what YOU post. You seem to take the Bu$h talking points as truth. Do a little research about a few things just to see if someone else might be right. Look up Ken Adelman and Richard Perle. See who they are and what they did and how they feel now. If this doesn't wake you out of you Bu$h stupor, nothing will. These guys were insiders in the Bu$h administration.

If the American people hate losers, then they are self-hating.

After all what other people would go into the debt to the tune
of tens of thousands of dollars each, to be paid to other
countries, and to the very wealthy in our own country and
not ask for anything in return but an illusion of security?

Why don't the American people who have been used and
practically bled dry make any demands on our government?
They must think they are losers and deserve to be treated
like it. Every other developed country in the West treats
it people like an asset, protects them, heals them and
invest in them and their children.

It is only here that we seem to have a bitter bullying
loser's attitude of taking it out on those who are
even more losers than we are.

Here we are brainwashes that standing up for ourselves
and other Americans is communism. The laughable irony
of this is probably what puts that smirk on President
Bush's face every time he goes out in public these days.

Stand up for yourselves Americans and throw the bums
out. And remember these people's faces ... do not ever
consider them in the future the next time they come back
either.

Denny:
"Well if you don't know what i'm talking about, your not too smart."
I said that because you don't have any proof as to what you talking about, just throwing out baseless accusations that you read on liberal blogs probably...

"the one I would "love" to WIN) the minute we went into Iraq, you know, the country that did not attack us on 9/11, had NO weapons of mass destruction, (deception), and had no ties to Al Qaeda."
If you really beleive this, then you obviously are ignorant of the fact that Saddam was reported to have connections with not only Al Qaeda, but also Palestinian terrorists in Isreal. He used the weapons of mass destruction he apperently didn't have on the kurds in the north to kill tens of thousands of them, and regardless of whether he has ties directly to 9/11, he was part (a big part) of the bigger picture regarding the fight against radical islam. If you disagree with this, then you are either ignorant of history, or just unwilling to admit that maybe Bush hasn't been lying to you all along...

"I heard one of the talking heads say the other day that the soldiers are a reflection of the rest of the country, and that not ALL of them support this war."
I agree that not ALL of them support the war, but the fact is that that Zogby poll isn't what the soldiers are reporting when they come back. The majority of soldiers being inteviewed, writing on their blogs, and talking to the politicians (who are coming back saying good things) are all saying that we need to stay longer. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the troops to be their any longer either, but we can't just leave. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to see the bloodshed on the evening news that would occur if we left.

"BTW, even the neo cons that helped start this "illegal war" don't support it anymore."
You ignorance in calling this an illegal war is astounding. Let me make this clear: After '91, we has a cease fire with Iraq, they broke that cease fire 19 times, Bush was authoirzed by OUR congress to use force against Saddam. The coalition included the majority of the NATO members (which is more that CLinton received when he bombed the Balkans). Now, when two countries have a cease fire, and one breaks that cease fire, how is it illegal to go to war?
Also, there have been some defections in the media about the war, and those people are entitled to their opinions, but the fact is that there are democrats who are now saying we need to stay longer because the surge is working (funny, you didn't talk about that, did you). Are you sure your sources are so "reliable"? After all, the decmratic politicians and liberal media people who have been coming back from Iraq are saying we need to stay, so why are you trying to undermine what they are saying?

"It is not Al Qaeda that is the big problem, it's a "CIVIL WAR, STUPID","
There is secterian violence, but the second in command for "Al Qaeda in Iraq" got captured and basically said that it was part of Al Qaeda, and they were trying to create the atmoshpere of a civil war. There is no civil war, and in fact many reports that are coming out are showing that the secterian violence has practically gone away in areas where the surge has been. You didn't hear about this through your "reliable" media sources? or did you just "miss it"?

"And the funniest thing of all, some in the Bu$h administration are leaning toward a strong man dictator that can stop the "civil war"."
Your post shows a person deeply entrenched in liberal media bias. Who was it a few days ago that called for Maliki's removal? Oh, thats right, it was Hillary Clinton (the savior herself). What did Bush do? He stated that he supported Maliki and if the IRAQI PEOPLE decided to remove him, they could do so in the next election...

Wow, what a concept. Bush wanted the Iraqi's to choose who their leader will be, and Hillary want to remove their leader, and Bush is the one who doesn't care about freedom or sovereignty? Give me a break...

"You don't know near as much as I do about this subject, so peddle your wares some where else. "
With every post you make, that statement will sound even more funny to me than it does now...

> If you really beleive this, then you obviously are ignorant
> of the fact that Saddam was reported to have connections
> with not only Al Qaeda, but also Palestinian terrorists in Isreal.

Israel ... you have to reverse the "e" and the "a" Isaac.

Saddam was reportedly paying the families of Palestinians suicide
bombers $10,000. Ties with Al-Qaida have been alledged because
Al-Qaida members have been tracked inside Iraq, but never had
been tracked to Saddam of any of the Iraqi government.

It is so amazing how so much of this boils down to Israel as
a symbol of Islamic intolerence.

The Saudi Royal family hates Jews so much that they will not
let a Jew set foot in the country, and force companies globally
that they contract to get rid of Jews in their employ. The idea
that they can do this because they have lots of oil, and the
world let them is proof that any idea we have about human
rights anywhere is a joke.

It is not only Jews, but any non-Muslim who is theoretically
not supposed to be able to set foot in hallowed Saudi territory.
They are unable to practice their religion.

Islam has a slanted evil way of life by nature to everyone else
in the world. They would go loco if they were told they could
not establish their religion here, yet the have no problem
repressing and murdering Non-Muslims, and even apostate
or enemy Muslims in their own lands. Think Christians, Jews,
Yazidi, even Kurds.

What an incredible scenario. If this happened anywhere
next to the US no American would ever stand for it but somehow
it becomes OK if it is marketed as only happening to Jews.

Oh, and as in India, the Muslims have to have their own state
because they would not live with everyone else, so they got
Pakistan, East and West. Now they want Kashmir, but Muslims
refuse to let the Kurds, Yazidi, Jews of anyone have the smallest
amount of land to be free of Muslim repression.

There is no question that this way of life is toxic to the whole
world. What other part of the world say you cannot visit an
ancient heritage site ... Mecca. If you are not a Muslim and you
go to Mecca you are murdered.

How and why is the rest of the world supposed to accept
these infantile criminals as neighbors?

Anyway, attacking Iraq was justified. The excecution of the
war has been botched, possibly deliberately, for some unknown
reason, perhaps oil and infrastructure contracts. There may be
a reason that is unappetizing for this, but Bush is not talking.

You have to admit that putting Chalabi, and Iranian agent, at the
head of the vanguard for regime change was strange.

One might get the idea that Chalabi was a go-between from Iran's
government to the US government to coordinate this dance of
skyrocketing oil prices.

"Islam has a slanted evil way of life by nature", Well you have it partly right, but instead of the word Islam, use the word religion. The 3 major religions ALL incite violence. They are ALL 3 man made. That is what will destroy this planet, in the name of religion.

"I said that because you don't have any proof as to what you talking about, just throwing out baseless accusations that you read on liberal blogs probably..."

You know, I went back and reread your posts and it amazed me that they were full of "baseless accusations". And your ignorance of history amazes me too. Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up Jews, Not my problem. Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein, thought he was a bad Muslim, and vowed to kill him. "Duh"

"There is secterian violence, but the second in command for "Al Qaeda in Iraq" got captured and basically said that it was part of Al Qaeda, and they were trying to create the atmoshpere of a civil war. There is no civil war,"

Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself ? Here let me help you, "and they were trying to create the atmoshpere of a civil war. There is no civil war,"

"Let me make this clear:" When someone is so fuzzy on history, and current events, like you, there is NOTHING that you can make clear to me. It hard to debate with someone that is brainwashed. They'll tell you white is black. They don't argue with facts, they argue with propaganda. They have been programed by their masters to do, not think. You my friend, have officially been brainwashed. Everything you wrote, I have read. But most of that, has more to the story that you republibots tend to forget, which usually disproves your part.

I agree with Rich Kaye, This (your) artical (brain) has fizzled out.

> The 3 major religions ALL incite violence.

Denny - You are just wrong here. You may want to set
all things morally equivalent, but all that means is that
you are incapable of higher thought and so resort to
a lazy and useless analysis of the world.

In terms of war, as Douglas McArthur said:
> Once war is forced upon us, there is no other
> alternative other than to apply every alternative
> to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is
> victory not prolonged indecision.

The difference between someone who has expertise in
battle and a deskbound Commander in Chief. Bush and
his group seems to missed every opportunity to gain
and make advances in Iraq. That is a loser.

Denny:
"You know, I went back and reread your posts and it amazed me that they were full of "baseless accusations". And your ignorance of history amazes me too."
I don't know what you are trying to say here... I notice you didn't actually address any of my "baseless accusations"... how convenient....

"Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself ? Here let me help you, "and they were trying to create the atmoshpere of a civil war. There is no civil war," "
That is not a contradiction... perhaps you should reread it. The point is that they were trying to create an atmosphere of civil violence, but in reality it wasn't a true civil war... it was only sporadic violence ignited by deliberate actions of terrorists in order to fool illinformed people like yourself (apperently it worked)...

"The 3 major religions ALL incite violence. They are ALL 3 man made"
How do the doctrines of forgiveness or grace "incite violence"? Don't think to hard, I wouldn't want you to get a headache...


Bruce:
"The difference between someone who has expertise in battle and a deskbound Commander in Chief. Bush and his group seems to missed every opportunity to gain
and make advances in Iraq."
This might have been true for the first few years of this war, but in the last 8 months we have seen a NEW COMMANDER, with a NEW STRATEGY, and MORE TROOPS make a huge difference in many parts of the country. Does that still mean that Bush has missed "every" opportunity to make progress?
how is that old saying, "better late than never!"...

Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say in your post higher up. However, do you think that Islamic traditions regarding the constant expansion of power both to the east and the west could and would be thwarted by a successful democratic Iraq?

History paints a dim picture of Islamic theocracies through the centuries. They constantly attacked and conquered Mediterranean states and carried slaves off to the middle east. With the rise of the west and the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, we saw a new type of global situation arise. One where Islamic-Arabs or islamic-persian armies are no longer the terrors they once were. i think (in part, and besides their doctrines) this is what has caused the terrorists to hate us so. My point is that you seem to have a geniune acceptance of the Iraq war at face value, but are not sure what (if any) strategic purpose it has to the U.S.... If that is the case, i would like to say that I think that Iraq is not the end all. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, all are dispicable excuses for humane governing. But there are people who want change, and we need to help them. Political pressure has not worked in 30+ years, I think Bush felt it was time for something more. Perhaps he was wrong, but we probably won't know for another 30 years.

Also, I know how Israel is spelled, it was a typo (but one I know I do a lot and try to avoid). Thanks anyway...

I make that typo all the time too.

You seem to want to be very quick to forgive and forget over
mistakes made in Iraq Isaac. I have to disagree. Something
is "hinky" here, and this President's inactions will have huge
consequences to the whole effort, they already have.

By the way, we do not have a new commander, Mr. Bush is
still CIC, and has not shown any ability to question his actions
or the actions of his subordinates ... right down to the wire,
as is the case with Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc - chronic incompetence
when we have another 17 months of this term.

The troops that "could" possibly have pushed us to victory used
correctly are now tired and demoralized. The public and the world
question America's actions whereas after 911 they were with us.
There is a time value to political capital Isaac that President Bush
is no better at managing than he was Harken Energy.

I give Bush credit for military action which is no small thing.
Some Democrats wanted to treat this as a law enforcement
project which would not have worked. Aside from that, unless
there is much more to the plan than we all have heard about,
which is entirely possible, this whole thing has been a fiasco.

The terrorists beside their own reasons of inferiority also have
plenty of reason that we have given them for hating us. There
is no telling really how many potential terrorists there are out
there in Muslimland. Bushes goal seems to be to deliberately
stir them up and draw them into Iraq and fight them. Maybe
that is the best he can do. But directing the course of the country
along this path that implictly remove the people and democracy
from the US path into the unforeseen future, and does nothing
for them while also removing jobs, importing workers IS PURE
UNADULTERATED IDIOCY ... OR A RECIPE TO RECREATE IRAQ
HERE!

"If we dealt with Al Queda harshly and relentlessly 20 years ago like we should have we wouldnt have this mess today. "

Again you show your ignorance. there was NO Al Qeada 20 years ago. And we did deal with them 20 years ago. About the same time WE (the US) were arming Saddam Hussein with WMD's to use against the Iranians, (but he used them against his own people too) WE (the US) were arming Osama Bin Laden to fight against the soviets. As with most foreign policies of the US we tend to back the most radical of fighters, and it usually blows up in our face. And you DON'T know more about Al Qaeda than I do. If you think you do, ask me something.

"Once war is forced upon us, there is no other
> alternative other than to apply every alternative
> to bring it to a swift end."

The only war that was FORCED upon us by the terrorist, was Afghanistan. Bu$h FORCED the Iraq war upon us. And just because Bu$h says something, doesn't it's true. No reason to attack Iraq !!!

You know, Rich, I think you and King George I, and maybe a hand full of other people, are the only ones that DON'T believe that Iraq is in a civil war. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Lets not call it a civil war. Lets just say it's 2 factions of a population, killing each other off, to gain political power over the other one. No, wait, that IS a civil war, duh !!!!

And about the Christian aspect of my statement that you all so ignorantly missed. I'll answer that in 2 words, inquisition, and crusades. All done by Christians.

Issac, which "baseless accusations" do you want me to address first.

"After '91, we has a cease fire with Iraq, they broke that cease fire 19 times," And those 19 times, are over a period of about 15 years. Thats why we had a "no fly zone" in Iraq, and it was working.

"He stated that he supported Maliki and if the IRAQI PEOPLE decided to remove him, they could do so in the next election... " No, his FIRST statement was "If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians," No mention of support for Maliki. He came back a couple of days latter, after someone called him on it, to RESTATE that he supported him. But wait and see just how much Bu$h supports Maliki. Look to the future.

Like I said before, it's hard to debate with the brainwashed, they debate with propaganda , not facts.

Denny:
You still didn't adress any of my "baseless accusation"... partly because I havn't made any. You adresssed two of my points, but made very weak arguments and didn't show why they were "baseless"...

"After '91, we has a cease fire with Iraq, they broke that cease fire 19 times," And those 19 times, are over a period of about 15 years. Thats why we had a "no fly zone" in Iraq, and it was working."
The no fly zones were created after the first Gulf War to make sure Saddam didn't butcher the Kurds to the North or the Shia's to the south. It wasn't so that he could continue to break them. That is why Bush didn't even need a direct show of force, all he has to do was go back to war. When cease fires are broken, congress does not need to declare war or go through the UN. Think about it before you respond... I know thinking is hard, but just try...

" "He stated that he supported Maliki and if the IRAQI PEOPLE decided to remove him, they could do so in the next election... " No, his FIRST statement was... "
I don't know what you were trying to prove here. he has said he supported Maliki, and that the Iraqi's will replace him if they don't think he is doing a good job. that is exactly what I said.

"No mention of support for Maliki. He came back a couple of days latter, after someone called him on it, to RESTATE that he supported him."
Are you one of his staffers? How the heck do you think you know this? really it doesn't matter anyway, he said he supports Maliki.

"But wait and see just how much Bu$h supports Maliki. Look to the future."
Are you serious? Bush and the faithful conservatives are the ONLY ONES still supporting the Iraqi government. The democrats and American media have wanted us to abandon them for along time, and only recently are becoming more reasonable.... So what exactly was your point? I know, nothing...

"And about the Christian aspect of my statement that you all so ignorantly missed. I'll answer that in 2 words, inquisition, and crusades. All done by Christians."
And I'm ignorant about history? Give me a break...
I assume your talking about the "Spanish Inquisition", which lasted from approximately 1600 to 1870's. In actuality, the violence during that period was limited and sporadic. But lets get one thing strait: The "Christian" church that carried out the inquisition did not get their beleifs from Christian jurispudence or the Bible. it was carried out for the express purpose of power. that is completely different from Islamic tradition that dictates terrorism and violence towards non-muslims so that followers can receive the "grace" of Allah.
The Crusades were an attempt to regain the Holy Lands from the violents Arab muslims. After several hundred years of conquest after conquest made by Muhammed's followers into southern Europe, the Europeans decided to do a little themselves. The Byzantine Empire (which controlled Europe) was not unified, but instead it USED THE CHURCH as a unifying factor and choose a mission of crusading to regaind the Christians Holy land. In case you didn't know this, there were many Jews and Christians living in Europe at this point because of the opression and violence shown to them by their mulsim conquerers.
So, in reality, your historical analogies hold no water and show your complete disregard for increasing your critical thinking skills. From the looks of it, you have been doing that for some time...

Bruce:
I think were we differ is that I don't beleive the media. When there as many lies and scandals going on in the major media, i just have a hard time beleiving that they are telling the truth without an agenda. Since it is pretty obvious their agenda is to paint Bush as evil, I go elsewhere for my information... Those sources seem to paint a different picture of Bush's management of the war. i do agree that he has made mistakes, but I don't think they are as bad as you do.... Some perhaps, not even his fault and yet he (being a good leader) excepted responsiblity for them.... I think it shows a lot when someone who is in the small minority is still fighting for a cause that he thinks is just. perhaps you disagree, and that is fine...

Isaac, you impugn the media, easy to do these days, but you say you do not believe the media? Do you think they are lying ... give me an example? What media paints George Bush as evil and is there not media who paints his actions as good as well?

Where else do you go that you think is less biased?

Bush accepting responsibility? It is fashionable now for politicians to use that term. They say they accept responsibility with the real meaning being - no don't mention it again. It doesn't work that way. Accepting responsiblity means actively doing something to fix whatever broke.

Bruce,

Rich and Issac have bought the talking points book that Bu$h published. I don't know where to get one, but i'd love to see it. Watch this,

Issac,

Spanish inquisition = Catholic = Christians. Key word = Christians, fact. I have a friend who is an expert on the English Church. He told me, that back then, the church would come around, whenever, wherever it wanted to, if it wanted something from you, like your property, they would give you a check for the value of the property. But this was no ordinary check. It was an afterlife check, that was good only to you, and only after you died. There is nothing that you can say about ANY religion that has ANY credibility to me. More wars, heartaches, and suffering has been done in the name of these so called "peaceful religions", than all other reasons combined. It takes a real "believer" to fall for the fairy tale. So go marching off to war, "Christian soldier". And btw, I wasn't saying the English church is the Spanish inquisition. I was saying they are all corrupt. And also, I guess since the violence was "limited and sporadic", then thats OK, huh? I bet it wasn't OK for those who suffered "a little bit". Death is death, it don't matter if it's the Spanish church or the English church doing it, it's still death.

Next point, what you said about the no fly zone, so, I already knew all that. How does that make MY point wrong. IT WAS WORKING. Every one of those 19 times, they paid for it, BOOM !!!!

Next point, oh wait, where's my response about taking care of Saddam and his buddy Osama 20 years ago. BTW it was daddy Bu$h that did the wheeling and dealing with Saddam on the WMD's. Don't know history as good as you thought, do you.

I have decided to end ALL my post to you Bu$hwackers this way.

(revised) It's impossible to debate with the brainwashed, they argue with propaganda, not facts.

BTW, there is a concept that Bu$h, and most politicians on both sides have forgotten. Along with excepting responsibility, should come consequences. The only consequences Bu$h has paid in Low approval ratings, Boo Hoo !!! Who is really paying the consequence for that idiots responsibility. The troops. And one last thing, before I discontinue debating propaganda. He doesn't really like the troops. Do a little research and find out what Bu$h has done for (to) the military since he has become "president".

Bruce:
"Do you think they are lying ... give me an example?"
Not lying, just subjectively reporting things that push forward their agendas. Dan Rather is a prime example.... So is the New Republic's reporting of the "Baghdad Diarist", which has now been admitted to be false. Also, the ignoring of the terrorist bombings in Hyderabad, India yesterday where 42 people were killed (somehow, the report of terrorist activty in a country that has largely not contributed to middle eastern struggles somehow missed the front page of both the British and American media sources). There are plenty of examples inside the daily media reporting styles. Such as covering the daily suicide bombers, missing the two new schools opened, and constantly op-eding for the end of the war is somewhat biased, don't you think?
I don't think that there are completely unbiased sources for information. i just think that there are some less biased than others. I go to historians whom I know and respect to get their views. i listen to inteviews with military people on the ground, and people who are involved with the issues we are discussing. i will not go on the internet and read conservative blogs for hours and then pretend to know something about what is going on, that would be stupid.... (but it is unfortunately what I have to put up with on Devin's thread quite a bit)

"Bush accepting responsibility? It is fashionable now for politicians to use that term."
I agree that many politicians use this term losely. But what in Bush's term has been something that he has said should be left alone. Has he not responded to all the claims (sometimes rediculous) by the left that he somehow lied? Has he not said that he was responsible for Katrina issues (when in fact it was more fair to blame the state and local gov'ts for their incompetence)? Did he not accept responsibility for the failures in the Iraq war and instead create a new strategy with a new general? Think about it for a second... he has ever said that it was any of the previous generals fault's (even when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was their incompetance, not Bush's that put us in this bind) and yet there are arguments to be made to that effect. Why then do you continue to say he doesn't accept responsibility?
If by accepting responsiblity, you mean that he should resign, let himself be put in prison, and apologize everyday of his life to the whole world for "starting" the Iraq war, (like all the liberals want) then I completely disagree with you.... Lincoln made huge mistakes during his first administration that almost cost the Union the war and created strong disfavor among the public (in fact he even suggested to those in his cabinet that he probably wouldn't get elected to a second term), but yet when all was said and done, history has judged him well and many today think he is the greatest president we ever had...


Denny:
i don't know why I am wasting my time, you obviously are beyond help, but there is a couple of things:
"Spanish inquisition = Catholic = Christians. Key word = Christians, fact. I have a friend who is an expert on the English Church."
This sentence by itself should have been enough for me to stop reading, but I must comment. When we are talking about the Christian Church, then i will agree with you that there have been brief periods in the last 2000 years where it has provoked violence.... But the fact is that we are talking about the Christian Faith, not the Christian Church. Do these instances have any foundation inside the Bible?... or inside the true Christian faith? The answer is no, and perhaps if you read any of the Bible or pursued knowledge of the Christian Faith, you would realize that those instances in the Church's history were NOT based on fundamental teaching..... You would also be hard pressed to find someone presently who would defend such actions....
Now, when we talk about Islam, not only is terrorism and killing of the innocents supported inside the "church" of Islam (expecially the House of Saud), it is also supported in the Muslim Holy books. When Bin Laden and Zawahiri write treatise regarding the legitimacy of suicide bombing, or targeting of civilians, or violent Islam, they are basing there opinions of sound Doctrine.... not personal vendetta's that many in the west claim.

"I already knew all that. How does that make MY point wrong. IT WAS WORKING. Every one of those 19 times, they paid for it, BOOM !!!!"
Ok, if the no fly zones were working, shouldn't they have only needed 1 resolution?... not 19? I suppose your thinking is that just because they were violating them doesn't mean they weren't working.... That might make sense to a child, but not someone with reasonable intelligence... If you really knew anything about the situation, you would know that the resolutions were really hurting the civilians, while Saddam was relaxing in his mansion with gold toilets. Can anyone say "Oil for Food program?" What you don't understand is that the no fly zones were not peace, just merely a prolonged cease fire that needed to end when terrorists (which Saddam had helped in the past) killed 2,900 Americans on 9/11.

"Next point, oh wait, where's my response about taking care of Saddam and his buddy Osama 20 years ago. BTW it was daddy Bu$h that did the wheeling and dealing with Saddam on the WMD's. Don't know history as good as you thought, do you."
Did i ever say otherwise? Does this remark even have any relevance? Is Bush to be condemned by the mistakes of his father? Your remarks are ignorant rants, not intelligent thought... but I guess I should expect that from libs like yourself.

"Along with excepting responsibility, should come consequences."
Where was that type of rhetoric from the left when Clinton sold nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions? Oh wait, they didn't "prove" that, now doesn't that sound familiar?

Denny, your moronic responses are full of pathetic twisting of truth and knowledge suitable for a high schoold freshman. I would presume you are either young, or simply not intelligent... Either way, hopefully you will eventually realize that your opinions are not "new" but in fact have been echoed in the past, and have been proven wrong. Since you don't know anything about history, and have not studied it with the intention of learning, you will constantly go through life thinking that your opinions are more than the simple uninformed opinions that they truly are. To bad for you...

"but I guess I should expect that from libs like yourself."
You are a dumb ass. I hate "lie"berals, CONservatives, republibots, and dumbocraps. The federal government exists today to stay in power, thats all. When they DO help someone it's the special interest. Pharmaceuticals, oil, you know stuff like that.

"Along with excepting responsibility, should come consequences."
Where was that type of rhetoric from the left when Clinton sold nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions? Oh wait, they didn't "prove" that, now doesn't that sound familiar?
You idiots can't leave Clinton out of it, can you. HE ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE. You made a comment in this same thread, about not holding Bu$h responsibility for daddy's actions. Well, what does Clinton have to do with Iraq. Oh yeah, Clinton is responsible for Iraq, because GHW Bu$h sold WMD's to Saddam Hussein. And he is responsible for 911, because Bush sold arms to Osama Bin Laden. Both Bu$hs are the only ones responsible for the Iraq war. I guess Cheney was right. It is a quagmire, huh? What if daddy Bu$h had backed up his rhetoric. You know, "overthrow Saddam, we got your back". He left many good Iraqi's hanging in the wind, literally. And BTW, Bu$h has sold more military secrets to China, than Clinton ever had time to.


you will constantly go through life thinking that your opinions are more than the simple uninformed opinions that they truly are. ditto, head.

I will no longer respond to your propaganda, so write away moron. You pick and choose your facts, to bolster your story and ignore the facts that disprove you. Alot of what you have said is true, but dig deeper, the rest of the facts are there, if you would just quit watching the False Noise Report, you'll get "the rest of the story".

It is impossible to debate with the brainwashed, they argue with propaganda, not facts.

For anyone still visiting this thread,
I apologize for my short haietus, my computer crashed and it tool a couple days to get it up and running again.

My next article will be up shortly...

Denny:
"I will no longer respond to your propaganda, so write away moron"
Good, the more you write, the more you incriminate yourself with your own intellectual deficiencies.

"You are a dumb ass. I hate "lie"berals, CONservatives, republibots, and dumbocraps. The federal government exists today to stay in power, thats all."
Well, if its it so bad here, why don't you go somewhere else that isn't so "corrupt"? If you hate all those people (which happens to be the majority of Americans) then why don't you go over to Europe where you can live in their imaginary socialist utopia? Probably cause you know this is actually the best place to be and the best government in the world running it. If you don't, then your unpatriotic.

"You idiots can't leave Clinton out of it, can you. HE ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE. You made a comment in this same thread, about not holding Bu$h responsibility for daddy's actions."
Your entire post had nothing to do with my point and was barely coherent. I was just pondering why the democrats and the left find it so easy to label Bush a criminal, and yet somehow they just missed Clinton's own (more blatant) violations of the law. It had nothing to do with blaiming Bush for CLinton's screw ups, I don't know where you got that.

"Alot of what you have said is true, but dig deeper, the rest of the facts are there,"
I know what I have said is true. it is the ignorant, uninformed, twisted rhetoric coming out of your posts that have been wrong. But I understand you better now.... The information that we receive from first-hand accounts is not good enough by itself, you must have a preconceived idea about the inherent evil of conservatives, CHristians, and businesses in order to see the "truth". Yeah, you fit the age old mold of liberal progressives who think that there ideas are always new and world changing (only because they know nothing about the history of those ideas and their former failures).

Thank you for the insults. One thing I have learned is that progressive idiots only get angry when they are faced with the facts. Thank you for that confidence boost.

I know I said I would not respond, which I am Not. But just a quick question. What are YOUR "independent"sources, that is NOT Fox News, that you get your "information" from. Unlike you I actually do search for the truth, not just the propaganda. And Unlike you I do have an open mind. So educate me. Tell me where you get ALL your info. Unless it FN, If it is FN, never mind.

I guess it was Fox News. huh? He didn't respond to my search for the truth.

Denny,
I will repost this and maybe you will read it. It is something that I posted above.

"I don't think that there are completely unbiased sources for information. i just think that there are some less biased than others. I go to historians whom I know and respect to get their views. i listen to inteviews with military people on the ground, and people who are involved with the issues we are discussing. i will not go on the internet and read conservative blogs for hours and then pretend to know something about what is going on, that would be stupid.... (but it is unfortunately what I have to put up with on Devin's thread quite a bit)"

Just so you know, I don't hardly ever watch Fox News. In fact, I watch CNN and MSNBC more than Fox News, but that can't be true now can it :)

I never said that I get it from "independent" sources, i would even know what those are. i get information from ligitimate sources that may have biases, but I don't let those biases rule my opinion. That is why I try to get my information from mayn different sources, in order to not have warped opinions based on one-sided information, unlike yourself.

Thats funny, I watch those same channels and thats NOT the message I get. Who are these historians you get info from. What is "their "bias. I guess you don't realize, that ALL news sources are bias in one way or another. Where do you see these interviews of our military on the ground. I want names, other than Fox, as they have "NO" credibility with me.

And BTW, "That is why I try to get my information from mayn different sources, in order to not have warped opinions based on one-sided information, unlike yourself."

Denny,
Historians such as Victor Hanson, Bruce Thornton, Raymond Ibrihim, and others. News sources with interviews such as the Hugh Hewitt show, and yes (sometimes Rush Limbaugh, but rarely).

"I want names, other than Fox, as they have "NO" credibility with me. "
That is funny. Even though i don't watch Fox News normally, they seem to be way more fair than MSNBC where you appently spend most of your time. Did you know that 83% of Fox News employees political contributions went to Democratic politicians? I know that can't be, can it? did you know that out of 134 journalist who gave political contributions from 2004 to 2006, only 17 gave to the Republican party? That is interesting, but I'm sure they can keep an "objective" view of things, can't they?

It is also apperant to me that you don't read my posts, since I am having to repeat myself. This is something I wrote to Bruce:
"I don't think that there are completely unbiased sources for information. i just think that there are some less biased than others."
Why don't you understand what I am saying? Is it really that hard, or should I use shorter words?

Isaac,
MSNBC and CNN are far more unbiased than Faux Noise ever thought of being. Faux regurgitates Right wing rhetoric and calls it fair and balanced because in their tiny little minds thay think by giving completely Right wing biased news, they are countering the "liberal media. You think it's "fair" because they are cheer leaders for your side. I tell you what you really don't like about the "liberal" media. They tell the truth and the truth always makes the Right look bad, and why is that? Because they are my friend, because they are.

Now Devin, Lets be fair to Issac. Fox News no longer advertises the "fair and balanced" moniker. They can't. You know, that truth in advertising thing.

Issac,
You know this name calling, back and forth achieves 1 thing. Division. But then that's what your party is all about, huh? Remember Rovian "Strategerie," divide and conquer. About your ASSumption that I don't read, just blindly post. I have read ALL of your posts in this thread. Although some of what you have said is true, it is also incomplete. That's the way you Bu$hwackers (sorry I couldn't resist) debate. You pick and choose "facts" that bolster your point of view and ignore the rest, or just make it. For example:

"Also, you keep referring to Warner as saying we should pull out troops. When in reality he said we should try bringing home 5,000 troops by Christmas to perhaps light a fire under the Iraqi's butts. He also reitterated that he wouldn't support democratic legislation to pull troops out or defund the war."

As I pointed out above, you are right, about part of what Warner said, but he DID NOT say he wouldn't support the dems attempt to "defund" the war. He said that he would look at that when it came up. Thats all. Look it up.

"If you really beleive this, then you obviously are ignorant of the fact that Saddam was reported (who reported it, Fox) to have connections with not only Al Qaeda, but also Palestinian terrorists in Isreal. " Again, right about the Palestinian, wrong about Saddam Hussein.

And you seem to ASSume that all generals are non partisan. They vote too. Is Patraeus just another Bu$hwacker. I think he is. According to Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a consultant to Bu$h on the Iraq war, he is.