Howard Dean is unhinged

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was thinking bong, but bottle fits too!

[AURaptor 1,126]

I was thinking bong, but bottle fits too!

TT seemed a bit fussy, and that's more in line w/ a mal content drunk than one w/ a good herb buzz on.

I'm just sayin'.

[GalensGhost 0]

I was thinking bong, but bottle fits too!

TT seemed a bit fussy, and that's more in line w/ a mal content drunk than one w/ a good herb buzz on.

I'm just sayin'.

I read it because I was trying to be fair and objective. You'd think he'd be glad I took the time to try to see his side instead of blasting me as an a**hole. That was pretty harsh.

All I saw in that long diatribe were criticisms. Criticism is useless. As a business owner I tell my employees the same thing.

Don't come bitching to me about how somebody else is doing their job unless you have a clear and concise vision of how you could do it better and have the ability to explain it to me with passion and conviction. Over the years I've had a few try the bitching route. They don't last long. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.

You may not agree with Bush, but he has the conviction to make a decision and then act on it. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed liberal be able to accomplish the same. They're quick to tell you what's wrong, but have no idea how to do things better.

Sometimes conservatives are just as bad. Remember the lottery? The ministers and others came out in full force against it and managed to stir up enough people to get it voted down. I'm not in FAVOR of the lottery but I voted for it because nobody offered a better alternative and the state needed (needs) the revenue. Come up with something better and I vote for that. Instead, we got nothing. Bad deal, that.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

I read it because I was trying to be fair and objective. You'd think he'd be glad I took the time to try to see his side instead of blasting me as an a**hole. That was pretty harsh.

All I saw in that long diatribe were criticisms. Criticism is useless. As a business owner I tell my employees the same thing.

Don't come bitching to me about how somebody else is doing their job unless you have a clear and concise vision of how you could do it better and have the ability to explain it to me with passion and conviction. Over the years I've had a few try the bitching route. They don't last long. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.

You may not agree with Bush, but he has the conviction to make a decision and then act on it. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed liberal be able to accomplish the same. They're quick to tell you what's wrong, but have no idea how to do things better.

I responded to a harsh post accordingly. Respond to me reasonably and respectfully, and I'll do the same.

You don't know what you read, but your bitching about it anyway. This forum is full of substance-free put downs of Howard Dean and other Dems, ad nauseum. This post wasn't him "bitchiing about somebody else is doing his job." This was PRE-INVASION and he had more foresight about Iraq than Bush did THEN. He saw us headed in the wrong direction and made the argument for another direction. Anyone who disagreed with Bushco, Inc. at the time was mindlessly dismissed by the mindless Bush crowd. You guys always dismissed Dean and others who disagreed as crazy and Bush as strong and resolute. Please don't waste my time telling me you were just trying to be fair and objective. Either we both know that isn't true, or you're deluding yourself, and I know that you, unlike some of the others here in the Bush chorus, are actually smart enough to know better.

This crazy guy saw this when Mr. Resolute could not:

But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground. ...

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

He did offer an alternative:

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

He also suggested that Korea should be a greater priority at that time.

Tell me, if you are truly bothered by incessant criticism and truly objective, do you just not read Tigermike's and David's posts? Because I haven't heard you comment similarly about their incessant bitching.

[GalensGhost 0]

I read it because I was trying to be fair and objective. You'd think he'd be glad I took the time to try to see his side instead of blasting me as an a**hole. That was pretty harsh.

All I saw in that long diatribe were criticisms. Criticism is useless. As a business owner I tell my employees the same thing.

Don't come bitching to me about how somebody else is doing their job unless you have a clear and concise vision of how you could do it better and have the ability to explain it to me with passion and conviction. Over the years I've had a few try the bitching route. They don't last long. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.

You may not agree with Bush, but he has the conviction to make a decision and then act on it. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed liberal be able to accomplish the same. They're quick to tell you what's wrong, but have no idea how to do things better.

I responded to a harsh post accordingly. Respond to me reasonably and respectfully, and I'll do the same.

You don't know what you read, but your bitching about it anyway. This forum is full of substance-free put downs of Howard Dean and other Dems, ad nauseum. This post wasn't him "bitchiing about somebody else is doing his job." This was PRE-INVASION and he had more foresight about Iraq than Bush did THEN. He saw us headed in the wrong direction and made the argument for another direction. Anyone who disagreed with Bushco, Inc. at the time was mindlessly dismissed by the mindless Bush crowd. You guys always dismissed Dean and others who disagreed as crazy and Bush as strong and resolute. Please don't waste my time telling me you were just trying to be fair and objective. Either we both know that isn't true, or you're deluding yourself, and I know that you, unlike some of the others here in the Bush chorus, are actually smart enough to know better.

This crazy guy saw this when Mr. Resolute could not:

But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground. ...

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

He did offer an alternative:

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

He also suggested that Korea should be a greater priority at that time.

Tell me, if you are truly bothered by incessant criticism and truly objective, do you just not read Tigermike's and David's posts? Because I haven't heard you comment similarly about their incessant bitching.

This is the first time I've ever really responded to anything of this sort. I'm not in "Bush's camp" I'm not in "Dean's camp" I make up my own mind. Sometimes I vote Republican. Sometimes I vote Democrat. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job and will support causes I believe to be important. I vote for people I trust. I don't trust Dean. I don't trust Kerry. I don't trust any of the Clintons. I don't trust Leiberman. I don't trust Kennedy. I don't trust any of the national democratic candidates. I think they are liars. I don't support the agendas they push. I don't see ANY meaningful solutions or answers coming from them or the media pawns (Molly Ivins and her ilk) who spend all day every day bashing Bush.

I don't necessarily agree with some of his execution of the war, but I do agree with the decision to invade Iraq. In fact, I'd like to up the ante and crush the resistance with the full force available to us. I think he's made a mistake by pandering to people like Dean instead of keeping the "kick ass and take names" stance he started with. As a result, we -- and I blame the vocal liberals for this -- are once again fighting a "non-confrontational war" We want a nice little war where nobody gets hurt. I guess the whole "war is hell" thing died with the greatest generation. I'd like to see us get all the way in or get the hell out and just admit that Barbara Striesand, Susan Sarandon and George Clooney defeated the U.S. Army. You do realize that if those jackasses were alive in the 1930s and 40s, America would NEVER have been victorious in World War II and this earth would be a miserable place to live? You do realize that if John Kerry had been President in 1945 we would have surrendered to the Japanese in order to pacify the U.N.

As for the statements from Dean above? I ABHOR the UN and its pathetic "security council". I have no respect for it or its ability to do anything of substance. Dealing with these sort of issues is somewhat like raising a child. There are only so many toothless "timeouts" and meaningless resolutions you can pass. Sometimes you have to break out the rod. It's never pleasant for anyone involved, but sometimes it has to happen. The mealy mouthed cries to keep doing the same thing we've been doing for half a century and somehow expect to achieve different results are ridiculous. I have zero respect for that stance. Sparing the rod has already produced a spoiled and rotten child whose tantrums put the world at risk. Punishment was necessary. Giving him another U.N. warning would be a clear sign of weakness. Like a child he would have pushed the limits. It had to be done.

If Dean, Kerry or any of their group had somehow come to power, we'd still be sitting around wringing our hands and wondering when the UN was going to pass another resolution.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

I read it because I was trying to be fair and objective. You'd think he'd be glad I took the time to try to see his side instead of blasting me as an a**hole. That was pretty harsh.

All I saw in that long diatribe were criticisms. Criticism is useless. As a business owner I tell my employees the same thing.

Don't come bitching to me about how somebody else is doing their job unless you have a clear and concise vision of how you could do it better and have the ability to explain it to me with passion and conviction. Over the years I've had a few try the bitching route. They don't last long. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.

You may not agree with Bush, but he has the conviction to make a decision and then act on it. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed liberal be able to accomplish the same. They're quick to tell you what's wrong, but have no idea how to do things better.

I responded to a harsh post accordingly. Respond to me reasonably and respectfully, and I'll do the same.

You don't know what you read, but your bitching about it anyway. This forum is full of substance-free put downs of Howard Dean and other Dems, ad nauseum. This post wasn't him "bitchiing about somebody else is doing his job." This was PRE-INVASION and he had more foresight about Iraq than Bush did THEN. He saw us headed in the wrong direction and made the argument for another direction. Anyone who disagreed with Bushco, Inc. at the time was mindlessly dismissed by the mindless Bush crowd. You guys always dismissed Dean and others who disagreed as crazy and Bush as strong and resolute. Please don't waste my time telling me you were just trying to be fair and objective. Either we both know that isn't true, or you're deluding yourself, and I know that you, unlike some of the others here in the Bush chorus, are actually smart enough to know better.

This crazy guy saw this when Mr. Resolute could not:

But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground. ...

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

He did offer an alternative:

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

He also suggested that Korea should be a greater priority at that time.

Tell me, if you are truly bothered by incessant criticism and truly objective, do you just not read Tigermike's and David's posts? Because I haven't heard you comment similarly about their incessant bitching.

This is the first time I've ever really responded to anything of this sort. I'm not in "Bush's camp" I'm not in "Dean's camp" I make up my own mind. Sometimes I vote Republican. Sometimes I vote Democrat. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job and will support causes I believe to be important. I vote for people I trust. I don't trust Dean. I don't trust Kerry. I don't trust any of the Clintons. I don't trust Leiberman. I don't trust Kennedy. I don't trust any of the national democratic candidates. I think they are liars. I don't support the agendas they push. I don't see ANY meaningful solutions or answers coming from them or the media pawns (Molly Ivins and her ilk) who spend all day every day bashing Bush.

I don't necessarily agree with some of his execution of the war, but I do agree with the decision to invade Iraq. In fact, I'd like to up the ante and crush the resistance with the full force available to us. I think he's made a mistake by pandering to people like Dean instead of keeping the "kick ass and take names" stance he started with. As a result, we -- and I blame the vocal liberals for this -- are once again fighting a "non-confrontational war" We want a nice little war where nobody gets hurt. I guess the whole "war is hell" thing died with the greatest generation. I'd like to see us get all the way in or get the hell out and just admit that Barbara Striesand, Susan Sarandon and George Clooney defeated the U.S. Army. You do realize that if those jackasses were alive in the 1930s and 40s, America would NEVER have been victorious in World War II and this earth would be a miserable place to live? You do realize that if John Kerry had been President in 1945 we would have surrendered to the Japanese in order to pacify the U.N.

As for the statements from Dean above? I ABHOR the UN and its pathetic "security council". I have no respect for it or its ability to do anything of substance. Dealing with these sort of issues is somewhat like raising a child. There are only so many toothless "timeouts" and meaningless resolutions you can pass. Sometimes you have to break out the rod. It's never pleasant for anyone involved, but sometimes it has to happen. The mealy mouthed cries to keep doing the same thing we've been doing for half a century and somehow expect to achieve different results are ridiculous. I have zero respect for that stance. Sparing the rod has already produced a spoiled and rotten child whose tantrums put the world at risk. Punishment was necessary. Giving him another U.N. warning would be a clear sign of weakness. Like a child he would have pushed the limits. It had to be done.

If Dean, Kerry or any of their group had somehow come to power, we'd still be sitting around wringing our hands and wondering when the UN was going to pass another resolution.

And that would be better than having turned Iraq into a country sympathetic to Iran. You clearly have no idea of the impact of this action, but guess what-- you are clearly in the Bush camp.

Make up your mind. Do you admire Bush's "conviction" or do you fault his "pandering to people like Dean instead of keeping the "kick ass and take names" stance he started with. As a result, we -- and I blame the vocal liberals for this -- are once again fighting a 'non-confrontational war' "

I may have given you too much credit. You blame the "liberals" for the way the guy you praise as having "the conviction to make a decision and then act on it" has conducted the war. AMAZING! A few people who are totally out of power, by merely expressing their opinions have control over how Bush acts! Talk about bitching and whining! Nah, you're not in the Bush camp. You wouldn't caught dead making whiny ass excuses for that guy.

[GalensGhost 0]

You are very bitter.

I'm certainly not in the Bush camp. And I don't see what's so hard for you to understand about my position.

I admired his conviction in pursuing the war to begin with. I thought -- and still think -- it was the right thing to do. I think he should have followed through with the hard line he took from the beginning. I think we should have kicked total ass, taken the risk (human and financial) and been done with it.

But instead, as the media (spurred on by idiots like Kerry, Dean, Clinton and others) hounded him relentlessly, painting every action and reaction in the worst possible light, he wimped out. Shock and awe was replaced by appease and please. That was a mistake. I don't support that.

What would have happened in WWII if we'd just tried to do "peacekeeping" in Germany after Hitler was gone? What if we'd just tried to "maintain" Japan? Would those two countries be thriving today as they are? Want me to answer that? No they would not.

And don't hand me the "dedicated Islamist" crap. The Japanese were just as dedicated and just as fanatical. And look at them now.

What you don't get is that this is NOT a war between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties do some things right and some things wrong. We need to quit worrying about what is best for some idiotic "party" and start worrying about what is best for the country. What's best for the country is to quit fighting a peacable war and take command of Iraq. Sometimes being a leader means not being popular. Sometimes it means you have to do unpleasant things. Sometimes it means you have to sacrifice. Sometimes it means you have to be strong and demonstrate that strength. Bush is (or at least was) a hell of a lot closer to that than any democrat I know.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You are very bitter.

I'm certainly not in the Bush camp. And I don't see what's so hard for you to understand about my position.

I admired his conviction in pursuing the war to begin with. I thought -- and still think -- it was the right thing to do. I think he should have followed through with the hard line he took from the beginning. I think we should have kicked total ass, taken the risk (human and financial) and been done with it.

But instead, as the media (spurred on by idiots like Kerry, Dean, Clinton and others) hounded him relentlessly, painting every action and reaction in the worst possible light, he wimped out. Shock and awe was replaced by appease and please. That was a mistake. I don't support that.

What would have happened in WWII if we'd just tried to do "peacekeeping" in Germany after Hitler was gone? What if we'd just tried to "maintain" Japan? Would those two countries be thriving today as they are? Want me to answer that? No they would not.

And don't hand me the "dedicated Islamist" crap. The Japanese were just as dedicated and just as fanatical. And look at them now.

What you don't get is that this is NOT a war between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties do some things right and some things wrong. We need to quit worrying about what is best for some idiotic "party" and start worrying about what is best for the country. What's best for the country is to quit fighting a peacable war and take command of Iraq. Sometimes being a leader means not being popular. Sometimes it means you have to do unpleasant things. Sometimes it means you have to sacrifice. Sometimes it means you have to be strong and demonstrate that strength. Bush is (or at least was) a hell of a lot closer to that than any democrat I know.

And your initial response sounded very bitter and and angry to me.

I think your understanding of history in regard to WWII seems pretty limited. The Japanese saw Hirohito as a God. He capitulated completely to McArthur who spared him being tried as war criminal, and instead, used him to get the Japanese people to accept the occupation. He remained as a figurehead until Bush I. There is no great analogy between Iraq and Japan, or Germany for that matter. Both of those countries, especially Japan, were extremely homogeneous. Iraq is more analogous to the Balkans in terms of the longstanding deep-seated, differences. In fact, even moreso. Bush never really seemed to understand that. Most supporters of this war didn't either.

[GalensGhost 0]

And your initial response sounded very bitter and and angry to me.

I think your understanding of history in regard to WWII seems pretty limited. The Japanese saw Hirohito as a God. He capitulated completely to McArthur who spared him being tried as war criminal, and instead, used him to get the Japanese people to accept the occupation. He remained as a figurehead until Bush I. There is no great analogy between Iraq and Japan, or Germany for that matter. Both of those countries, especially Japan, were extremely homogeneous. Iraq is more analogous to the Balkans in terms of the longstanding deep-seated, differences. In fact, even moreso. Bush never really seemed to understand that. Most supporters of this war didn't either.

No, I'm not angry at all except at the divisiveness I see. We are in Iraq. For better or worse. We made the right decision to go there and are making the wrong decision not to unleash all our power and finish the job.

I have a degree in history. I understand that Japan and Germany are different than Iraq. What I'm getting at with that analogy is that America was a different place then and our armed forces were allowed -- if not encouraged -- to rain hell on the enemy. Now they're regularly pilloried in the press for trying to maintain the peace. We could NEVER fight a war now like we did then. And that makes us weak. I also understand that both Germany and Japan were dominated by a cult of personality, led by a dictator who unleashed all manner of torture and incomprehensible suffering on his people. I also recognize that simply deposing Hitler or neutering Hirohito would not have put an end to the war. Their countries had to be crushed. The had to be completely broken and rebuilt from the ground up. And in that rebuilding America gained allies. The country and the world are stronger as a result. If we do this right and crush Iraq, obliterate the resistance, occupy the country and install leaders who will shepherd the first few years of growth, we could end up with a strong ally in the Middle East as well. What we're doing now will only render us impotent there.

Friend of mine has a saying. When the bus pulls out of the station you either need to be on it or get out of the way. I'm sick and tired of people standing in front of the bus. The bus has left the station. We sent troops to Iraq. Maybe you didn't agree. Maybe you think it was a mistake. But guess what? We're there anyway. Whining about "Bush should have" or "Kerry would have" is completely unproductive. Support the troops. 100%. Support whatever it takes for us -- for America -- to finish this thing and finish it decisively so we don't have to go back in five or ten years and do it again.

I want people like Dean, Kerry, Ivins and the rest to shut up, get out of the way of the bus and let our troops finish the job that was started.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

And your initial response sounded very bitter and and angry to me.

I think your understanding of history in regard to WWII seems pretty limited. The Japanese saw Hirohito as a God. He capitulated completely to McArthur who spared him being tried as war criminal, and instead, used him to get the Japanese people to accept the occupation. He remained as a figurehead until Bush I. There is no great analogy between Iraq and Japan, or Germany for that matter. Both of those countries, especially Japan, were extremely homogeneous. Iraq is more analogous to the Balkans in terms of the longstanding deep-seated, differences. In fact, even moreso. Bush never really seemed to understand that. Most supporters of this war didn't either.

No, I'm not angry at all except at the divisiveness I see. We are in Iraq. For better or worse. We made the right decision to go there and are making the wrong decision not to unleash all our power and finish the job.

I have a degree in history. I understand that Japan and Germany are different than Iraq. What I'm getting at with that analogy is that America was a different place then and our armed forces were allowed -- if not encouraged -- to rain hell on the enemy. Now they're regularly pilloried in the press for trying to maintain the peace. We could NEVER fight a war now like we did then. And that makes us weak. I also understand that both Germany and Japan were dominated by a cult of personality, led by a dictator who unleashed all manner of torture and incomprehensible suffering on his people. I also recognize that simply deposing Hitler or neutering Hirohito would not have put an end to the war. Their countries had to be crushed. The had to be completely broken and rebuilt from the ground up. And in that rebuilding America gained allies. The country and the world are stronger as a result. If we do this right and crush Iraq, obliterate the resistance, occupy the country and install leaders who will shepherd the first few years of growth, we could end up with a strong ally in the Middle East as well. What we're doing now will only render us impotent there.

Friend of mine has a saying. When the bus pulls out of the station you either need to be on it or get out of the way. I'm sick and tired of people standing in front of the bus. The bus has left the station. We sent troops to Iraq. Maybe you didn't agree. Maybe you think it was a mistake. But guess what? We're there anyway. Whining about "Bush should have" or "Kerry would have" is completely unproductive. Support the troops. 100%. Support whatever it takes for us -- for America -- to finish this thing and finish it decisively so we don't have to go back in five or ten years and do it again.

I want people like Dean, Kerry, Ivins and the rest to shut up, get out of the way of the bus and let our troops finish the job that was started.

Were you opposed to the Iraqi election?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

And your initial response sounded very bitter and and angry to me.

I think your understanding of history in regard to WWII seems pretty limited. The Japanese saw Hirohito as a God. He capitulated completely to McArthur who spared him being tried as war criminal, and instead, used him to get the Japanese people to accept the occupation. He remained as a figurehead until Bush I. There is no great analogy between Iraq and Japan, or Germany for that matter. Both of those countries, especially Japan, were extremely homogeneous. Iraq is more analogous to the Balkans in terms of the longstanding deep-seated, differences. In fact, even moreso. Bush never really seemed to understand that. Most supporters of this war didn't either.

No, I'm not angry at all except at the divisiveness I see. We are in Iraq. For better or worse. We made the right decision to go there and are making the wrong decision not to unleash all our power and finish the job.

I have a degree in history. I understand that Japan and Germany are different than Iraq. What I'm getting at with that analogy is that America was a different place then and our armed forces were allowed -- if not encouraged -- to rain hell on the enemy. Now they're regularly pilloried in the press for trying to maintain the peace. We could NEVER fight a war now like we did then. And that makes us weak. I also understand that both Germany and Japan were dominated by a cult of personality, led by a dictator who unleashed all manner of torture and incomprehensible suffering on his people. I also recognize that simply deposing Hitler or neutering Hirohito would not have put an end to the war. Their countries had to be crushed. The had to be completely broken and rebuilt from the ground up. And in that rebuilding America gained allies. The country and the world are stronger as a result. If we do this right and crush Iraq, obliterate the resistance, occupy the country and install leaders who will shepherd the first few years of growth, we could end up with a strong ally in the Middle East as well. What we're doing now will only render us impotent there.

Friend of mine has a saying. When the bus pulls out of the station you either need to be on it or get out of the way. I'm sick and tired of people standing in front of the bus. The bus has left the station. We sent troops to Iraq. Maybe you didn't agree. Maybe you think it was a mistake. But guess what? We're there anyway. Whining about "Bush should have" or "Kerry would have" is completely unproductive. Support the troops. 100%. Support whatever it takes for us -- for America -- to finish this thing and finish it decisively so we don't have to go back in five or ten years and do it again.

I want people like Dean, Kerry, Ivins and the rest to shut up, get out of the way of the bus and let our troops finish the job that was started.

I haven't advocated leaving Iraq, or under funding/supplying our troops. I thought that once we made the bone headed decision to go, we should have committed more troops. And I could more easily support Bush if he had the sound judgement to say, "It may have been a mistake to go, but now the stakes are too high to leave." But when he keeps insisting it was the right decision to go, he insists that that debate continue.

Frankly, I simply don't trust the judgment of someone who still thinks this was a good idea. And judgment is too important of a quality in a leader. A leader with poor judgment, can't be a good leader. That's what we got. It doesn't really matter how passionate the leader is if he has crappy judgment.

[GalensGhost 0]

I haven't advocated leaving Iraq, or under funding/supplying our troops. I thought that once we made the bone headed decision to go, we should have committed more troops. And I could more easily support Bush if he had the sound judgement to say, "It may have been a mistake to go, but now the stakes are too high to leave." But when he keeps insisting it was the right decision to go, he insists that that debate continue.

Frankly, I simply don't trust the judgment of someone who still thinks this was a good idea. And judgment is too important of a quality in a leader. A leader with poor judgment, can't be a good leader. That's what we got. It doesn't really matter how passionate the leader is if he has crappy judgment.

Germany never attacked us. Was it the right thing to do to engage Germany in WWII? Or should we have appeased Hitler?

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. A hundred years from now when they write the history books -- assuming Molly Ivins isn't writing them -- Bush will be praised for his courage and willingness to do the right thing even in the face of criticism from people who had no better alternative.

Was leaving Hussein in power and kowtowing to the joke that is the UN really the answer? Was another ten years of bloated discourse with no action the solution? Hussein was a danger to this country and to the world. Whether he had WMDs or was just trying to get them, he had already thumbed his nose repeatedly at the UN. He had no intention of following the rules. He celebrated the acts of the terrorists. Taking him down makes it harder for those groups to organize. Without a recognized governmental authority that supports them, it makes it harder for them to keep things together. Our presence in the Middle East helps keep this country safe by keeping the Bin Ladens of the world in hiding. Can you tell me without reservation that if Sadaam had remained that he would not have accepted and given Al Queada state support? Legitimacy? United in their hatred of us?

Just like with a child, sometimes you have to actually follow through on threats of force. If you don't they'll eventually own you.

You don't trust the judgement of Bush because you think the war was a mistake. I don't trust the judgement of Kerry, Dean or any national democrat I've seen yet because they would never have had the sack to make the decision to do it to begin with. I just wish Bush wouldn't worry so much about what the national media says or what the Republican party says (in order to try to keep control of the legislature) and would commit to finishing the job.

I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I'm glad we live in a country that allows you to have it. I sometimes wonder if people who think like you do (and especially those further to the left) have ever considered that the freedom to hold an opinion is a right granted to you because people in the past had the temerity to do unpopular and unpleasant things because they were the right things to do. I fear that time has passed. Nobody wants to be unpopular. Not parents, not teachers, not preachers, not elected officials. Few are willing to say the things they truly think because those thoughts -- while completely natural -- might be considered offensive. If you don't think the war was a good idea, you're welcome to think that. I'm sure there were people in WWII who thought we should have left the Japanese and Germans alone. The difference then was that people didn't snipe the president and undermine the troops. Not saying you are doing that, but that's what I see far too many people in positions of political and media power doing.

As wrong as I think Gundlach was in the execution of his personal agenda, I don't begrudge his right to express his opinion of what he felt was wrong. He just went about it the wrong way. I think he should be fired for that. Not for saying something was wrong, but for completely bypassing the procedure and not allowing his superiors to handle things within the framework of his organization.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

I haven't advocated leaving Iraq, or under funding/supplying our troops. I thought that once we made the bone headed decision to go, we should have committed more troops. And I could more easily support Bush if he had the sound judgement to say, "It may have been a mistake to go, but now the stakes are too high to leave." But when he keeps insisting it was the right decision to go, he insists that that debate continue.

Frankly, I simply don't trust the judgment of someone who still thinks this was a good idea. And judgment is too important of a quality in a leader. A leader with poor judgment, can't be a good leader. That's what we got. It doesn't really matter how passionate the leader is if he has crappy judgment.

Germany never attacked us. Was it the right thing to do to engage Germany in WWII? Or should we have appeased Hitler?

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. A hundred years from now when they write the history books -- assuming Molly Ivins isn't writing them -- Bush will be praised for his courage and willingness to do the right thing even in the face of criticism from people who had no better alternative.

Was leaving Hussein in power and kowtowing to the joke that is the UN really the answer? Was another ten years of bloated discourse with no action the solution? Hussein was a danger to this country and to the world. Whether he had WMDs or was just trying to get them, he had already thumbed his nose repeatedly at the UN. He had no intention of following the rules. He celebrated the acts of the terrorists. Taking him down makes it harder for those groups to organize. Without a recognized governmental authority that supports them, it makes it harder for them to keep things together. Our presence in the Middle East helps keep this country safe by keeping the Bin Ladens of the world in hiding. Can you tell me without reservation that if Sadaam had remained that he would not have accepted and given Al Queada state support? Legitimacy? United in their hatred of us?

Just like with a child, sometimes you have to actually follow through on threats of force. If you don't they'll eventually own you.

You don't trust the judgement of Bush because you think the war was a mistake. I don't trust the judgement of Kerry, Dean or any national democrat I've seen yet because they would never have had the sack to make the decision to do it to begin with. I just wish Bush wouldn't worry so much about what the national media says or what the Republican party says (in order to try to keep control of the legislature) and would commit to finishing the job.

I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I'm glad we live in a country that allows you to have it. I sometimes wonder if people who think like you do (and especially those further to the left) have ever considered that the freedom to hold an opinion is a right granted to you because people in the past had the temerity to do unpopular and unpleasant things because they were the right things to do. I fear that time has passed. Nobody wants to be unpopular. Not parents, not teachers, not preachers, not elected officials. Few are willing to say the things they truly think because those thoughts -- while completely natural -- might be considered offensive. If you don't think the war was a good idea, you're welcome to think that. I'm sure there were people in WWII who thought we should have left the Japanese and Germans alone. The difference then was that people didn't snipe the president and undermine the troops. Not saying you are doing that, but that's what I see far too many people in positions of political and media power doing.

As wrong as I think Gundlach was in the execution of his personal agenda, I don't begrudge his right to express his opinion of what he felt was wrong. He just went about it the wrong way. I think he should be fired for that. Not for saying something was wrong, but for completely bypassing the procedure and not allowing his superiors to handle things within the framework of his organization.

Actually, I opposed this war when it was popular and when you would be accused of being weak and stupid to oppose it, because I thought opposing this war was the right thing to do. I didn't oppose war in Aghanistan or Gulf War I, because I thought those were the right thing to do. More politicians did not oppose invading Iraq because it was popular at the time. We hardly questioned it. Even questioning it was percieved as weak.

When Saddam took over Kuwait, even though it is no democracy, we did not appease him. In fact, we beat him back and left him very weak-- but he was still strong enough to counter Iran. When we invaded Iraq it was a paper tiger. Hitler had taken over several countries by the time we engaged him. And he was allied with Japan which did attack us. In fact, Germany first declared war on us, after Japan attacked us, so that analogy is very weak.

[GalensGhost 0]

I haven't advocated leaving Iraq, or under funding/supplying our troops. I thought that once we made the bone headed decision to go, we should have committed more troops. And I could more easily support Bush if he had the sound judgement to say, "It may have been a mistake to go, but now the stakes are too high to leave." But when he keeps insisting it was the right decision to go, he insists that that debate continue.

Frankly, I simply don't trust the judgment of someone who still thinks this was a good idea. And judgment is too important of a quality in a leader. A leader with poor judgment, can't be a good leader. That's what we got. It doesn't really matter how passionate the leader is if he has crappy judgment.

Germany never attacked us. Was it the right thing to do to engage Germany in WWII? Or should we have appeased Hitler?

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. A hundred years from now when they write the history books -- assuming Molly Ivins isn't writing them -- Bush will be praised for his courage and willingness to do the right thing even in the face of criticism from people who had no better alternative.

Was leaving Hussein in power and kowtowing to the joke that is the UN really the answer? Was another ten years of bloated discourse with no action the solution? Hussein was a danger to this country and to the world. Whether he had WMDs or was just trying to get them, he had already thumbed his nose repeatedly at the UN. He had no intention of following the rules. He celebrated the acts of the terrorists. Taking him down makes it harder for those groups to organize. Without a recognized governmental authority that supports them, it makes it harder for them to keep things together. Our presence in the Middle East helps keep this country safe by keeping the Bin Ladens of the world in hiding. Can you tell me without reservation that if Sadaam had remained that he would not have accepted and given Al Queada state support? Legitimacy? United in their hatred of us?

Just like with a child, sometimes you have to actually follow through on threats of force. If you don't they'll eventually own you.

You don't trust the judgement of Bush because you think the war was a mistake. I don't trust the judgement of Kerry, Dean or any national democrat I've seen yet because they would never have had the sack to make the decision to do it to begin with. I just wish Bush wouldn't worry so much about what the national media says or what the Republican party says (in order to try to keep control of the legislature) and would commit to finishing the job.

I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I'm glad we live in a country that allows you to have it. I sometimes wonder if people who think like you do (and especially those further to the left) have ever considered that the freedom to hold an opinion is a right granted to you because people in the past had the temerity to do unpopular and unpleasant things because they were the right things to do. I fear that time has passed. Nobody wants to be unpopular. Not parents, not teachers, not preachers, not elected officials. Few are willing to say the things they truly think because those thoughts -- while completely natural -- might be considered offensive. If you don't think the war was a good idea, you're welcome to think that. I'm sure there were people in WWII who thought we should have left the Japanese and Germans alone. The difference then was that people didn't snipe the president and undermine the troops. Not saying you are doing that, but that's what I see far too many people in positions of political and media power doing.

As wrong as I think Gundlach was in the execution of his personal agenda, I don't begrudge his right to express his opinion of what he felt was wrong. He just went about it the wrong way. I think he should be fired for that. Not for saying something was wrong, but for completely bypassing the procedure and not allowing his superiors to handle things within the framework of his organization.

Actually, I opposed this war when it was popular and when you would be accused of being weak and stupid to oppose it, because I thought opposing this war was the right thing to do. I didn't oppose war in Aghanistan or Gulf War I, because I thought those were the right thing to do. More politicians did not oppose invading Iraq because it was popular at the time. We hardly questioned it. Even questioning it was percieved as weak.

When Saddam took over Kuwait, even though it is no democracy, we did not appease him. In fact, we beat him back and left him very weak-- but he was still strong enough to counter Iran. When we invaded Iraq it was a paper tiger. Hitler had taken over several countries by the time we engaged him. And he was allied with Japan which did attack us. In fact, Germany first declared war on us, after Japan attacked us, so that analogy is very weak.

Sadaam supported and celebrated the terrorists who attacked us. Analogy works.

When we went into Iraq the first time we should have taken him out then. Maybe none of this would have been necessary. Maybe if Clinton and the democrats had taken Bin Laden when he was offered, maybe none of this would have been necessary.

All I ever saw the democrats do was create diversions. About to be impeached? Bomb somebody. They found Monica's dress? Send troops to Africa. Clinton made me physically ill. I thought he was a disgrace to this country. He was a pig. He turned me off to the democratic party. He keeps me turned off to the party because it refuses to acknowledge his faults. Instead of distancing itself from his self-centered idiocy, it still embraces it. I despise Clinton and I hate the crooked Kennedys. I disliked Kerry because he's of the same mewling cloth. I'd rather have a leader who does SOMETHING because he truly believes it to be in the best interests of the country even if it turns out to be the wrong thing than I would somebody who will only talk forever about things and do absolutely nothing. Clinton talked a good game, but everything he did was for his own benefit. He could give a rat's ass about the country. His entire reason for being was to get power in order to get snatch. He idolized Kennedy -- perhaps the most morally bankrupt man in American history.

Look around, we can't afford for those kind of people to be in power again. Not sure the country could survive.

We're never going to agree on this, our political ideologies are too far apart. I don't see the need to keep wasting each other's time. You have your opinion and reasons you consider valid enough to maintain it. I don't agree with your opinion and interpret the events that form it differently. Be glad this is America. Not the old Iraq or the current Iran.