Is it just me or did Bush actually make sense last night? I oppose the war in Iraq. I oppose the reasons we went there in the first place, but I have wondered whether or not our presence there was making the situation worse, wether we should stay or pull out, and what would be more damaging. Does our presence cause more uprise in insurgents? But Bush made sense when he said terrorists don't stop terrorizing if you leave, they take over.
That having been said, however, Bush hopes to change my mind, and your mind, on the reasons we went to war in the first place. He admitted faulty intelligence information, but also that given the circumstances and information he has now he'd still go in and invade Iraq all over again. It's a shift away from the WMD issue, and into the benefits of a democratic government in the Middle East. He hasn't changed my mind. We should've been willing to work with the UN, and we should've been more thorough in our intelligence gathering before we invaded. Saddam should've had a trial through the UN instead of blasting the whole country into smitherines.
The truth is, though, present and future conditions in Iraq are going to determine how the American public views the President's decision to go there in the first place.
That having been said, however, Bush hopes to change my mind, and your mind, on the reasons we went to war in the first place. He admitted faulty intelligence information, but also that given the circumstances and information he has now he'd still go in and invade Iraq all over again. It's a shift away from the WMD issue, and into the benefits of a democratic government in the Middle East. He hasn't changed my mind. We should've been willing to work with the UN, and we should've been more thorough in our intelligence gathering before we invaded. Saddam should've had a trial through the UN instead of blasting the whole country into smitherines.
The truth is, though, present and future conditions in Iraq are going to determine how the American public views the President's decision to go there in the first place.
Comments
Early returns from Iraq's elections show the government will be dominated by Shiites! How about that - more than 2,000 Americans dead and billions of dollars spent to install a Shi'ite Theocracy!
U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!
Anonymous-no offense, but it seems the man can never do any right, ever, and is the actual embodiment of evil on the Earth to some. I would invite you to reexamine wether you are truthfully looking at his policy, or blindly beating the propaganda drum. Remember, America was run in the beginning by Protestant White Men. I do think you are dead on about our billions of dollars of deficit. Our grandchildren will be paying for that one.
Sherpa-at this point I hope we're making a difference, too. What's done is done, whether I agree or not. I think it would be detrimental to pull out before a secure government is in place. I don't think we should occupy the place for the next ten years, however.
There's no denying that the Iraqi government will be dominated by Shi'ite fundamentalists who are sympathetic to Iran. There is no way on God's green earth that is good for the United States. In fact, the Iranian government says the elections are a victory for Iran.
Also, read the Conyers report released today, which says the actions of the President and his administration clearly rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Domestic spying, manipulation of intelligence...it goes on and on.
If these things were done by a Democrat - the howls of anguish would be deafening. That's the acid test.
So, try and deny it, but the Republican party is not upset by this - they are simply circling the wagons to preserve their power.
And Anonymous, I think the major problem facing the United States is the trend of party supremacy, in which the survival of the political party, Republican and Democrat, is a higher priority than the good of the nation or the world.
Scully, yes it is mainly white, Protestant men, but our country's leaders now include blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and women. They may not be the majority, but they're there. It's also a two-party system (and some would argue a fast-coming three party system) so many differing views are shared. You can't judge a government based solely on the sort that tends to get voted into one particular branch.
The majority party seems to be Shiite Muslims in Iraq now, but they're the majority of the people. Now they get a say in their government, wheras before they did not. Also, the acting Prime Minister is running as a secular leader, not a religious one. I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, and I really don't know why I'm bothering to defend it, or that I actually know that much about it. But at some point we have to stop fighting about it and start working on what we have now. We have a possibly disasterous situation if we pull out-especially right now. And telling the insurgents when we are leaving really sounds like a stupid idea. And I'm not the only non-Republican to think this way.