[-V-]

Are we in too deep or is it time to protest until our troops come home?

[JamesP]

As Al Sharpton said in one of the debates: "You can't get right from wrong".
The invasion of Iraq was wrong, is wrong and will be wrong tomorrow.
We should not have taken one Iraqi life or sacrificed one American life. It only gets worse. Sacrificing more lives to try to justify the deaths of those who went before lead to 50,00 American lives lost in Vietnam (and over 1 million Vietnamese in the overall conflict). Bring them home now. Turn Iraq over to the U.N.

[JamesP]

I understand the point of view that "now that we're in, we can't just pull out". On the other hand, I think it plays so beautifully for the war profiteers in, and associated with, the Bush administration. Unless we can see a reasonable outcome in a reasonable amount of time, I am not willing to commit more American lives and to feed the beast with more American $ billions. We can "lower" our investment in this "lost cause" by turning it over to the U.N. Such action will also signal to the world that America will not continue in the unilateralist, imperialist path blazed by the war & greed-mongers of the Bush administration.

[JamesP]

Did anyone see the clip of Jerry Falwell on the news yesterday? Referring to "terrorists" (one can only guess how he defines "terrorists" - everyone has their own convenient definition these days), he actually says to his television audience:
"Blow them all away...in the name of the Lord".
Another "Crusader" for Bush. 9/11 has reversed human evolution in the United States.....set us back hundreds of years to a more savage era.

[-V-]

that sell out hippie that you wanted to be president made me sick Kerry was a hero when he fought in Nam, even more of a hero when he spoke out against Nam, and heroic again in his efforts to unseat the corrupt simpleton and his cronnies presently in power so that people like you would not have to kill or be killed to fulfill his self serving agenda.
to the Democrats, we have become nothing but a number Just the opposite. To Bush you are faceless pawns. Your lifes and Iraqi citizen's lives are the acceptable cost of doing business overseas. He'll cut your benefits if you live and won't allow you to be publically honored if you die. To Kerry and the Dems you are a precious human being who should never be placed in harms way unless America is under imminent danger, all other options have been exhausted, and you are supported by the world community.
Very few soldiers have died compared to every other war in history you only have to look back a few years to his daddy's Gulf war
You won't be happy unless we go to war and not 1 person dies you got that right!
Stop disgracing my fellow soldiers and me Your leader disgraces you and your blind support of him disgraces yourself.
ignore everything these dead soldiers have fought for if it is an unjust war one soldier should not have been sacrificed, let alone, another 1400+ in honor of the first one. How many more Americans would have died in Vietnam to honor the pawns that died before them if it had not been for courageous "hippies" like John Kerry speaking out for true justice.

Welcome to our progressive discussion, Lane (this is civilian territory so I hope you don't mind if I drop the rank). I hope you will continue to participate. I'm sure there is much we can learn from each other.

[JamesP]

Hi Repub: Welcome. Glad to have you join us.

I see Democrats as mostly supporting the troops.
I see Republicans as mostly supporting GWB.

Democrats value the lives, well-being and families of the young men and woman who serve.

Republicans use patriotic slogans to justify the exploitation of our service people for their own benefit (mostly unrelated to the interests of the American people as a whole).

For example, We would never be able to rationalize huge tax cuts for the most wealthy people in the U.S. while the troops are undersupplied, their benefits reduced and their tours of duty extended.

We take war very seriously and feel we should all bear it's burdens. Cocktail parties, lavish coronations, huge tax cuts and the obscene enrichment of "friends of the Bush administration" corporations don't feel right to us when young, idealistic men and women are sacrificing so much.

We think "support our troops" means bringing them home safe and rewarding them for their service with excellent benefits for having served...
and not putting them at risk unless the threat is real and absolutely unavoidable.

Why is this wrong?

[JamesP]

Repub:
Just a couple of fun facts on the gap between the Bush administration's "professed" love of our military personnel & the "reality".

Bush No Friend to Veterans: Co-Payments Designed to drive vets from the VA

According to the Administration’s own figures, raising fees will drive about 200,000 veterans out of the system and discourage another 1 million veterans from enrolling.” [Department of Veterans Affairs, 9/03]

Bush Failed to Fully Fund Veterans Health Care: Bush's 2005 budget falls more than $2.6 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund quality veterans' health care, according to The Independent Budget, an annual collective assessment by four veterans’ service organizations of the funding levels and policy changes needed at VA. [AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04]

Bush Administration Calls for Total Closure of Three Veterans Hospitals, Partial Closure of Eight Others. In May 2004, the Administration decided to push for the closure of hospitals in Brecksville, OH; Gulfport, MS; and, Highland Drive, PA. Eight VA hospitals will be partially closed. In most cases, inpatient care will move to larger hospitals, leaving behind an outpatient clinic or long-term-care beds. The Administration is planning partial closures in Knoxville, IA; Canandaigua, NY; Livermore, CA; Montrose, NY; Kerrville, TX; Saginaw, MI; Ft. Wayne, IN; and Butler, PA. In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed the closure of seven hospitals in its efforts to “restructure” the Department of Veterans Affairs. [USA Today, 5/7/04; Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03, 12/16/03]

Much more to come if you'd like. Don't be fooled into selling your soul for the pathetic little tax refund you received. It was just a crumb thrown at you to divert your attention from the huge, budget-busting windfall GWB gave to the rich that will result in cuts in everything from veterans benefits to police and fire departments to social security:

[-V-]

gratelady, I salute you and your approach to the war, and my heart goes out to you, your son, and the Iraqi citizens.

[JamesP]

I feel more and more every day like a stranger in a foreign land. I don't understand the people, the culture. I had no idea how simple, selfish, unsophisticated and gullible Americans are.
It's astounding to me that so many could be deceived and mislead by the likes of the Bush administration. It could never have happened without the recent media consolidation. The corporate-owned media is this week planting the idea in the fertile soil of the feeble American mind that "Bush was right" in terms of middle-east policy. Invasion, mass-murder, the use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians, torture, all based on lies about a threat that never existed.
Somewhere, on the way to the mall, America lost it's heart, it's soul, it's greatness. It's a struggle to "keep hope alive" that we will find them again someday.

[JamesP]

Excellent points, Mr Whig!

Most all of us appreciate the sacrifices and service of those in the military, but "supporting them", in current Bush-speak, simply means giving blind support to any corporate war our corrupt leaders choose to engage us in. Bush has put our military in the hands of giant oil companies. Mega-corporations now have their own military through which they can export capitalism and seize assets. And we're supposed to keep silent about it to "support the troops".

Those of us insisting that they only put put in danger to defend against real threats are the only ones really "supporting" them.

[JamesP]

Lose not one life, not one limb, nor orphan one child....
- for Bush's oil wars,
- for the religious right's new crusade.
- or for whatever it is that Grate Lady seeks by spilling more & more blood in the middle-east

Bring them home safe now.

[-V-]

Peace must be fought for, people will die

Peace must be negotiated for.

Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity!

[-V-]

A negotiated peace? Sounds like something out of an Idealistic comic book.

no, Captain America is out of the comic books. The history books give us real heroes like Ghandi and Martin Luther King to name a few.

It is the killing that perpetuates killing in the Middle East not the negotiations.

If you invade someone's country, blow up their homes, enforce your version of freedom and culture (not theirs), and kill their father, brother, or child you better watch your back for the rest of your life. It is far more efficient to stop creating enemies than to try and kill every one of them.

[-V-]

if you kill everyone that is considered your enemy, no one will be left to be your enemy- right?

that might work if you and your enemy were isolated on an island but even then what would give you the right to kill at all. Are you "good" and the enemy is "evil"? Is God on your side, their side, or both sides? If your enemy is a potential criminal isn't it for the courts to decide and dispense justice? Or is it for the ones with the bigger bombs to lay all questions to rest in a pile of blood and rubble.

I don't know of any historic example of any group succeeding in wiping out their enemies. And many have tried, for a host of reasons ranging from simple greed to religion and ethnicity. You only have to look at the endless cycle of death and distruction in the Middle East. Not only did W not negotiate a resolution, like Clinton almost did, he created another endless cycle in Iraq.

Many of your ideas, Gratelady, are progressive and independant but on this one it seems that you have taken a sip of the "cool aid". I know the conditioning is strong in the military of any country but your spirit is stronger. Look there for the answer. And if you are a Christian, let Jesus be your role model not George S. Patton or George W. Bush.

Lasting peace requires communication, compromise, education and ultimately, understanding. Killing cannot create peace. It can only create killers.

[-V-]

kick a little more arab butt and the world will fall into line?

I believe they're still teaching that strategy in Caveman 101 class.

The Israelis and Palestinians have believed, for decades, that if they just kicked a little more of the others butt they would fall into line.

Kick one more butt, make 10 more enemies of the friends and family who bury the body!

[Jane of Arc]

I live close enough to a military base where I'm in the path of giant, low flying attack helicopters doing practice runs.

The other night I was in my bed and I was shaken awake by the roar of these machines. I tried to imagine what it would be like to have these terrifying machines shoot at me, my family, my children, my aging parents, my friends, my neighbors. I tried to imagine where I would hide ... what would I do? What would it be like to walk around my neighborhood and look at the destruction and death ... all the time knowing that my country did absolutely nothing to the United States of America to deserve the absolute slaughter of innocent women, men and children.

International reports of over 100,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed and they are innocent.

And the 2,000 American soldiers that have been killed are innocent.

The people that gave the orders who call themselves Christian have absolutely nothing to do with the essence or the compassion or the understanding of Christ.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Love thy enemies.

Thou shall not kill.

I'm not a 'religious' person ... but I have to say "Christ is cool."

Peace.

[-V-]

Jesus, like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc.. stood up in peace. Regarding 9/11, etc.. let's not forget that Jesus was the "turn the other cheek" guy not "eye for an eye". While no one expected America to turn the other cheek they expected justice be served to the Taliban and Bin Laden and never expected "shock and awe" campaigns waged among innocents with weapons of mass death and destruction.

[-V-]

quite a few other countries don't like us because we do have these freedoms BULLSHIT! They are not fighting against freedom and we are not fighting for freedom. We are fighting for control and they are fighting for us to stay out of their affairs. They do hate us for what they perceive as our arrogance, materialism, greed, corruption, decadence, and sexual exploitation, among other things, but they're not going to put their lives on the line for any of it.

Not allowing women to vote or show their face is not why we went into Afghanistan and has nothing to do with Iraq. Issues of repression and religious stupidity are matters for the world court/police to sort out with our cooperation. Besides we have our own assortment of religious stupidities to work out in our own country.

Yep! as long as the US stands up against the "radicals" there certainly is hope! Agreed. This country needs to take a stand against the religious fanatics here and overseas.

[JamesP]

I'm amazed & amused by how the radical right (blind apologists for the Bush administration) reaches so desperately for any possible way to obfuscate what to the rest of us is perfectly clear. Now some want to say, "oh, we won't know about Iraq for 10 years - we have to wait & see if Democracy takes root in the middle east".

It won't take 10 years to know about Iraq. The iinvasion of Iraq was and is wrong. The original justification and all of the subsequent justifications have been wrong. Tens of thousands of innocents have been killed, maimed and/or disfigured, 2 thousand young American lives have been completely wasted with many more to come. The country has gone from a stable nightmare under Sadaam to an unstable living hell in which mass suffering increases daily. Even the oil companies didn't get the oil they were after and now the Iranians, whom we paid Saddam to fight in the past, have major control of the country. Nothing has gone as the Bushies planned.... and now, they want to say, "we won't know for 10 years" if "democracy" takes root in the middle east. How convenient.

Astounding that they can so shamelessly perpetuate the latest lie; that those behind the Bush administration believe in "democracy" and "freedom" any more than they did in "WMDs". Like their leader, it's such "hard work" for them to come to terms with being wrong. Unfortunately, wrong doesn't magically turn right - even in 10 wishful years.

It's time to grow up, lay down your copy of "My Pet Goat", own up to your mistakes and be accountable for their terrible consequences. Conservatives used to talk about "accountability"...now they just won't know for 10 years more years the difference between right & wrong.

[JamesP]

Lady - I feel and share your pain.

Like you and every other American who is not a blind and blatant apologist for the Bush administration, Iraq wasn't on the top of my list of world concerns and still isn't. It's a fabrication of the Bush oil admninistration.

Imagining for just a fanciful moment that Iraq wasn't a corporate war after all and really was about freedom... I'm all for it, but not if we have to:
- drop a quarter million 2 ton bombs on cities full of civilians
- kill and maim tens of thousands of innocents
- break international law and become the world's biggest war criminals,
- adopt the use of torture as a new American value
- spend hundreds of billions we don't have on one small country that just happens to be sitting on oil
- and completely waste the lives and limbs of thousands of young Americans on a hopless and ill-conceived adventure in a country and culture that we little understand.

SnowDog's hero Ronald Reagan had the good sense, humanity, patience and maturity not to use the direct force of the US military to bring down the Soviet Union. The current gang of reckless, adolescent, frat-boy, pretenders (remember Bush's declaration that he was a "war President"!) running our government should have heeded his leadership example.

[-V-]

Many experts are now saying what was being verbalized before we went in to Iraq:

- So you want more Islamics, Muslims and Arabs to be free to choose the government that they want- What type of government due you think they want?

- And once that government is up and running, who do you think it will be loyal to?

- And what do you think they will remember of our war?

[Jane of Arc]

Dear Snowdog ~

Did you READ the article written by the well-respected writer of the New York Times, Bob Herbert, or did you just look at the site I got it from and dismiss it? It's an excellent article about our troops and deserves reading. I feel so bad for those kids trapped over there. I have a family member there who's hanging on by a thread.

Ideas for a Solution in Iraq

(1) Immediately throw Haliburtons' HBR out of Iraq and in a systematic, 'tribally equal' way turn oil production and profits over to the Iraqi people who own it. The country has enormous wealth and the oil production in Iraq can provide jobs, the money to repair the infrastructure and the only way out of their oppressive poverty.

(2) Show respect for Muslim nations and undercut the insurgents by turning to the surrounding Arab countries and establishing a series of "Iraq Summits" to aid in the challenges of creating a new, independent Iraqi.

(3) Make it clear that the US is withdrawing on a strict timetable and that Iraqi forces and the new government must be ready to keep the peace. If necessary an international peace-keeping presence may be needed by yes, the U.N.

[Jane of Arc]

Snowdog,

You're trying to justify an all-out WAR on the Iraqi people!!!

You want to talk about the "no fly zones"? I would venture to say if Iraqi military spy planes were flying over the USA's "no fly zones" we would shoot at them. But oh my! We attacked a country without a military!!!!!!

You want to talk about corruption? Take a good look at the people in the Republican Party you elected to office. You are so fixated on 'UN corruption' you can't smell the absolute STENCH coming from Washington!

You want to talk about CEO's getting rich off US service men's blood???? Oh my God snowdog! What in the world do you think Halliburton, Boeing, General Electric, etc. etc. etc.... are doing???? Halliburton's stock has sky-rocketed! Why?

There is nothing ... absolutely NOTHING ... you and other right wing hawks say can to justify this illegal, profit driven war!

Doesn't the deaths of 100,000+ innocent Iraqi people mean anything to you?

I repeat ... louder this time ...

DOESN'T THE DEATH OF 100,000 + INNOCENT WOMEN, MEN AND CHILDREN MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU??????


(according to John Hopkins University Research. http://www.countingthecost.org/johns-hopkins.html)

[Jane of Arc]

Weak response snowdog. Wake up and take responsibility for what the government YOU helped to elect has done.

This quote isn't from a middle eastern newspaper, but from a highly respected US university research team.


100,000+ have died in Iraq from US bombing.
In the latter half of 2004, researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health tried to remedy this. They conducted a study of death rates in Iraq before and after the coalition force invasion, led by United States and United Kingdom troops, in March 2003. Their results, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, conclude that at least 100,000 more Iraqis have died than would have if the invasion had not happened. In addition, they conclude that violence was the most frequent cause of death and that most of the violence came in the form of aerial bombardment by coalition forces. Most of the individuals who died as a result of these coalition bombardments were women and children.

And snowdog ... I'm with you 100% in going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden! But I hate to remind you that Al Qaeda & Bin Laden had NOTHING TO DO WITH Iraq until we bombed it back to the Stone Age! Even your idiot leader admitted that.

And in just about every post you bring up Michael Moore and his Halliburton stock. If it's true he was aware that his corporation owned Halliburton stock ... then I agree with you. It's hypocritical of him and he made a really stupid move.

[Jane of Arc]

The Iraqi War debate is OVER! The Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders in Iraq, including the President of Iraq, met in Cairo and voted unanimously for the withdrawal of US Troops within a 1 year timetable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference;_ylt=AnJFbdaJNxOWP8JvyftcWrms0NUE; _ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

The Iraqi Government have voted the US out!

The Iraqi people want us out!

The American people want us out!

[Jane of Arc]

Excellent post haus!

But here's what I think the deal is ...

We could come up with article after article, link after link for snowdog, adolph or anybody else on the right to consider and they won't.

Why?

Because they need to believe in their country ... their party ... and their troops. They need to believe in their president. They need to believe that this war is for a good cause.

The opposite is too painful for them.

But when the truth becomes apparent, all Americans have to remember that their country is made up of 'the people' not political parties. And this democratic experiment of a country called America is where our loyalties and efforts and respect should always lie. And furthermore, we should not depend on the will of our government, but rather the government should pay close attention to the will of the people.

[JamesP]

GreatLady: The Fox coverage is surprising.

I'm re-posting this with a couple of additions:

The outcome of the invasion of Iraq, thus far:

Negatives:

For the USA:
1- Worldwide loss of credibility
2- USA now seen as the major threat to world peace
3- initiated new race for nuclear weapons by countries subscribing to #2
4- torture & sexual humiliation established as "American" values
5- general loss of moral high ground & respect
6- enormous hostility around the world, fueling terrorist recruitment
7- China & Russia conducting joint military exercises (they used to be enemies)
8- 2 thousand+ young Americans dead
9- 15,000+ Americans injured, mangled and/or permanently disabled
10- a bitterly divided American population, distrustful of their gov't and each other
11- an out-of-control deficit burden, imperiling our future economic strength
12- Osama still at large, a religious folk hero for an angry Arab world

For the Iraqis:
1- a country marked by chaos & daily violence
2- an economy and oil industry in ruins
3- suffering under a brutal foreign occupation
4- civil war (with America supporting the Shiites)
5- Islamic law and reduced freedoms for women
6- Iran emerging as the dominant influence & only "winner" in the war
7- inability for citizens to work & support a family without great daily risk
8- Somewhere between 25,000-100,000 killed, the majority innocent civilians
9- countless more burned, wounded, disabled
10- the enduring image of their citizens on all fours, naked, held on a leash by an American woman
11- according to the 1st Iraqi Prime Minister (who the US supported), human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad or worse than under Saddam

Positives:
1 - An evil old man, already neutralized by the US & UN, removed from power.
2 - enormous profits for war and oil industries.
3 - USA budget surplus under Clinton shifted to private companies & individuals under Bush with war as "cover".

So tell me again:

- how does "little boy Bush" now define "winning" in Iraq?

- is there any hope that he will acknowledge that he and his cronies are in "way over their heads" in every conceivable way and begin considering alternative advisors and an alternative course?

- when do we let go of the fantasy of success and recognize & deal with the unpleasant reality of failure?

[JamesP]

More on the topic: "Endangering the troops"

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 7, 2006
A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

[JamesP]

------------------------------------------------------
Today's Poll: Gallop / CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans overwhelmingly lack confidence that Iraq will have a stable government in place within the next year, and more than half say that the war has not been worth its cost, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

Fewer than one in five, or about 19 percent, of the 1,003 adults quizzed Friday through Sunday, said they believe Iraqis can assemble a sound, democratic government in the next 12 months that is able to maintain order without the assistance of U.S. troops. Seventy-five percent said they didn't believe that would happen.

The poll also suggested that most Americans remain skeptical about the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 52 percent telling pollsters it wasn't worth going to war.
-------------------------------------------------

What's amazing is that 48% of our fellow Americans still cling to the idea that it was worthwhile going to war, displaying a hearty appetite for unnecessary death, destruction & human suffering on a grand scale.
Who these people are & how they can possibly live with themselves is a sad mystery. I guess anytime they can pound their chest and claim to be a part of a "good Arab ass-kicking" at no cost to themselves, but enormous costs to others, it's worthwhile to them: a testament to the low moral character & fanatical mindset of our Republican bretheran.

[jD_Empath]

Certainly the most logical solution for anyone with a mind toward the primacy of protecting human life would be to pull out all military forces, and then pay enormous reparations to Iraq for carrying out a war of aggression. The reparations would have to be enough to stem the current humanitarian catastrophe that is happening in that country. The preceeding humanitarian catastrophe (of the past decade plus a few years) can not be fixed. It has already happened, and all of the people who were either killed, allowed to die, or injured beyond recovery due to the sanctions can not be "fixed" by reparations. There has been an enormous usage of depleted uranium in Iraq as well, and that heavy and toxic element remains where it is (having a half life in the billions of years).

My confidence that this type of solution will happen is precisely zero. The United States did not invade Iraq without an exit strategy for no reason at all. The reason is that there was never any plan to leave. Four permanent US military bases now exist inside Iraq. These bases serve several purposes. An easy staging point for attacks against neighboring nations such as Syria or Iran, and a place to deploy troops to guard the oil fields of Iraq against their "re-usurption" by other forces (or perhaps even the people of Iraq).

The goal of a Middle East "Domino Theory" was presented years ago. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2935969.stm) We are now in the midst of a renewed fear campaign at home to prepare the people to support military action against Iran.

The question then becomes: Why does US policy now include actually taking control of the Middle East oil reserves, when it has been demonstrated that the oil could have been bought instead?

I believe the answer is this: One of the tenets of the PNAC is "full spectrum dominance". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, their planners realized that, for a time, the US would be the only superpower left. They recognized, however, that there could be another coutervaling force in the future (perhaps the near future) and resolved to "not allow any nation to gain ascendancy on the US" (I'm paraphrasing). Two very credible future competitors would include a United Europe (possibly including Russia) or China (at the time of the letter to Clinton China had been developing, but is now very much more rapidly developing economically).

At the present time, all economic and military forces are dependent on fossil fuel energy to carry out their plans. The PNAC have therefore determined that by militarily controlling the largest cache of energy reserves in the world, they can gain a strategic advantage over any potential future superpower now, before such a superpower can become super. The cost is enormous, and has resulted in staggering debt (which will be paid by us, the ordinary people of the US) and enormous humanitarian crises. The benefits are mostly enjoyed by large American Transnationals.

Perhaps the greatest threat from this policy is that of a possible WWIII. It has already become evident that the rest of the world is contemplating an economic "war" on the US. Some battles have already begun, as we have observed a major shift in the relationship of the dollar to the euro. Russia is taking steps to increase it's nuclear deterrent ability. Perhaps China is doing the same. These steps seem in direct response to the overt militarism displayed by the US over the past 5 years.

[Jane of Arc]

jD Empath~

I have to say ... your post was brilliant! One of the best that I have read on POL. Thank you for taking the time to write such a well-contemplated, insightful perspective.

I would love for you and/ or scoff0165 to start a new thread in this forum to specifically discuss The Project for the New American Century.

[Jane of Arc]

I have no bitterness of those that oppose the war. I think its great that
our country allows us the right to protest, what we believe is wrong.snowdog,

Allow me to point something out to you that is very subtle, but I feel speaks volumes to our differences. You think it's great that "our country allows us" to protest. "Our country allows us". By that you mean ... our government ... a governing power gives us permission?

You see, I feel it's my right to protest. The government of the United States works for me. I am an American citizen. I am their boss. You are their boss. We are the People are suppose to be in charge. That is why Bush's abuse of executive power is such an evil attack on our Constitution.

The fact that the Federal government is spying on citizens, the NSA is collecting data on citizens, the FBI is keeping files on citizens, bugging their homes, putting them in jail, harrassing them, beating them up, tear gassing them ... it goes on and on ... and they can do this without a court order, with out the right to a lawyer ... just on an executive demand?

That is what China does. That is what totalitarian governments do. That is NOT what democratic societies do.

[-V-]

Welcome, LTR

When you say,not because I think it was a bad idea to go fight them there

Fight who there? As Bush knew, the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, the Taliban were linked to Al Queda in Afganistan not Iraq, and Saddham and his people were not threatening us.

We could have invaded any country and ended up with motivated terrorists who want their country back. But if we wanted to "fight them there" we should have kept all of our troops in Afghanistan and hunted down Bin Laden.