I do not want to have Iraq become another problem in the future. I know that we have not made us safer by this war and the cost in lives, injuries and dollars is totally unacceptable.

If the information that said he was a danger was incorrect as the President admitted, how was Saddam a threat? What possible justification for going to war existed with a country that did not have the means to be a threat? There are many tyrants in this world that wish others harm. They are NOT a threat if they do not have the means of being a danger. fair statement

Well then I would have to say that in that case the real problem is not Bush but the American people themselves. If we allow such a mistake to be done twice then we are worse than Bush, whether you voted for him or not.

Yes, the crux of political chaos.

If GWB had been President on Dec 7, 1941 he would have invaded China. After they are all Orientals. Over the top.

I do not want to have Iraq become another problem in the future

If so stop rushing to leave Iraq and allow things to flow as they have to. You know as well as everyone else that walking out now would leave Iraq at the edge of a cliff just waiting for the terrorist to push it over into their territory.

Whether all this is true or not it does not change the fact that whats done is done and we know have the responsability of Iraq in our hands. To walk away now is to walk away from everything we believe in and we claim to fight for and lose lives over. In the end there is a chance that those 2000+ soldiers that have died would have done it for Iraqs freedom either way. A chance, not for sure.

I know that we have not made us safer by this war and the cost in lives, injuries and dollars is totally unacceptable.

Actually you really don't know that. You can't be sure of that. But honestly to believe that we will never be attacked again is a fools dream. There will never be enough ways to protect ourselves no matter who is President, no matter what technology and no matter how many people actually care. IT is the job of those who wish to harm others to find ways and they always will. My mother has always said this to me " He who makes the law knows how to break it".

Cost of lives, injuries and dollar are never acceptable regardless if we win or lose. The only ones I have ever heard that like war are the Ferengi from Star Trek with their Rule of Acquisition # 34 " War is good for business".

Yesterday George W. Bush, out of his own mouth, documented that he is a Buffoon!

Bush isn't a baffoon. He's just taking advantage of his situation. It's the people who voted for him who are the baffoons. And the sheep who continue to support him. Daddy Bush can do no wrong.

The fly in Gene's ointment is that the President knows (and has admitted) now that the intel was flawed. I don't believe he knew that before the invasion - that's Gene's contention, but I don't buy it. We also had the reasonable expectation, at the time, that Saddam was intent on becoming capable of threatening us or our interests, and we knew he had repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire.

Cheers,
Baffoon Daiwa

Merry Christmas to you, BenUser.

I do not know what Bush Knew before attacking Iraq. But to ignore the Intel that said he might be wrong and to accept the BS from Chalabi does not make Bush look like a good leader. To go to war predicated on input from a person like Chalabi, and the Bush people knew this persons background , does not seem reasonable. Bush also did not inform Congress that his source for MOST of the WMD intel came from Chalabi. Today I read the newsweek article about Bush and the way the White House operates. If that article is at all true, we have a very dangerous person in power. That article said Bush is isolated and out of touch. His advisors are afraid to tell him the truth. A second article talked about how Bush interacted with other world leaders. In essence he does NOT interact with most world leaders and is kept away from the populations of every country he visits. The article suggested in the future, Bush should tele conferencing rather then traviling to other countries. The article said Bush tells other leaders what he intends to do and talks down to them. They do not react well to Bush.

Oh REALLY? Then please explain this! That is "if" you can:

Explain what Dr Millar? How on earth does your quote refute the quote you took from Col G? Where in your quote is there a figure given? A mass grave is a grave with more than a few people in it. So 10 for instance.

Thats hardly millions. Frankly the explaination is dead simple.

And col, Bush didn't say that in his speech that Saddam wasn't a danger, he said some of the intel was faulty.

How exactly was Saddam a threat to the American People?

Col, 19 people on Sept. 11 didn't have WMD and they were a danger. The ignorance just amazes me again.

What has Sept 11 got to do with Saddam Hussain. 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. None of them were sponsored by Saddam.

Well, two things, Gene.

Bush did not "go to war predicated on input from a person like Chalabi" - you know perfectly well there was a lot more to it. And to constantly spout flight-of-idea BS does not make you look like a reasonable critic.

Newsweek, to which I have subscribed for more than 30 years, is completely and hopelessly biased, especially Jonathan Alter. The only semblance of balance occurs on the last page, where opinion pieces from Will & Quinn alternate. They are nothing more than the print version of MSNBC anymore. Don't bet your farm on their assessment of anything.

OK, make that 3 things: Since when do we base our foreign policy on how other leaders "react" to us. I suppose we should have just busted our ass to please Kruschev & Castro? I, for one, hope Bush is blunt as hell with the likes of Chirac & tells any leader who needs to hear it just where they can stick their duplicitous heads (diplomatically & figuratively speaking, of course ). We don't pay our President to be nothing but a good cocktail party host, FCOL.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Today more then in the past to control something as vast as the terrorism requires the help of many countries- Intel, Financial information, communications etc. If there was a time when we should be trying to cooperate it is now. the Bush approach is working aginst that .

He is not liked in most countries in the world.

He is not liked in most countries in the world.

Just one of the things I like about him.

If there was a time when we should be trying to cooperate it is now.

Here's how that should read: "If there was a time when they should be trying to cooperate it is now." Any nation that would knowingly encourage or allow terrorists to operate is undeserving of any consideration, let alone cooperation. And I include Saudi Arabia.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Dude, Gene, even *I* wish you'd write about something else.

Yeah COL Gene, I second Myrrander. You gotta find something else to talk about. Pretty Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!