Everybody stop and think:

[LasBillz]

...and we are not getting out anytime soon. Estimates range from five to ten years of US troop involvement in Iraq. That means tens of thousands of US casualties.

Now that we have mistakenly committed our national prestige, uneccessarily PO'd and mobilized most of Islam, and turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, we cannot leave for the forseeable future. Doesn't matter who is President.

 

Anybody who thinks this isn't true is lying to themselves.

 

This administration is already into minimizing the costs: Rumsfeld just last week rationalized the loss of over 1,000 of our sons and daughters to serve his own arrogance and ignorance.

 

Anybody stop to think how much another 5 years of this unneeded war will cost monetarily as well? It might just bankrupt this country, people.

 

Right now, we have no effective checks or balances in our federal government. One party runs the executive, legislative, and yes, judicial branches. See election 2000.

 

One thing you've got to hand to Bush, though, is the fact that he has manufactured a situation where we now must remain at war without forseeable end. Osama is still out there, and by attacking Iraq, we have given him limitless new recruits. The fact that Bin Laden et al still exist is Bush's fault. Whatever happened to his "decapitate the leadership" strategy? Was Osama exempt?Instead, he and the neocons couldn't wait to put their 1998 plan to attack Iraq into action- which would have been a good thing if Iraq had indeed attacked us! The problem is, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda- the operative word being HAD. Now it's a terrorist nation- courtesy George Bush.

 

Many on this board think I'm a Dem- actually, I am a registered Independent and voted for Daddy Bush in 1988. Politically, I believe mainly in 2 things: split government and accountability. If any one party has total control, I feel it is less of a Democracy. And if someone screws up, you get rid of that person as soon as the next election comes up.

 

Right now, the shortest distance between those two points is throwing George W. Bush right out on his ear.

[Mickey]

Yes, it is true that we have ticked off most of the Islamic world but frankly, not ticking them off didn't work very well either. When every choice is a bad one, and sometimes that is the way of it, revealing the choice made as a bad one is not all that difficult. Besides, Kerry can't uninvade Iraq. Like it or not, we are there. As Powell said, "you own it".

[PastaJoe]

As Powell said, "you own it".

 

True, but with new leadership we'd at least have a chance to "rent it out" to other countries.

[LasBillz]

Yes, it is true that we have ticked off most of the Islamic world but frankly, not ticking them off didn't work very well either.  When every choice is a bad one, and sometimes that is the way of it, revealing the choice made as a bad one is not all that difficult.  Besides, Kerry can't uninvade Iraq.  Like it or not, we are there.  As Powell said, "you own it".

31213[/snapback]

Your statement implies that we had two equally bad choices: Invade Iraq or not. Not invading, leaving a powerless Saddam, and going after Al Queda full strength, we would not be in the soup we are today. Iraq has been an expensive, unnecessary diversion that has not served this country.

 

Further, let's extrapolate your point: Do we stick with the guy who made a huge blunder getting us into Iraq, re-elect him and let him get us into the same situations in Syria, Iran, and God knows where else?

 

We can't afford Bush anymore.

[Mickey]

True, but with new leadership we'd at least have a chance to "rent it out" to other countries.

31221[/snapback]

 

I don't see that happening. If the ship is really sinking, why would those who said it would from the start suddenly book passage? Can you imagine the political reaction in France or Germany if their governments suddenly decided to send some troops to Baghdad? There would be new elections and new governments voted in as fast as their laws allow. This war is widely viewed by our allies who have not participated as a moral and military failure. Why would they rush to sign up for that ride?

 

I am afraid that Iraq is our problem regardless of the outcome in November.

 

The only thing that might change that in the forseeable future is if things suddenly start looking up in Iraq. Allies will stumble forward if success appears to be imminent. Also, I guess if we suffered another horrific terrorist attack on our own soil, that could rally some sympathy.

 

Kerry's credibility over Bush's could be of value in many other ways but it will not be a magic wand that will create allies in Iraq from bystanders.

[LasBillz]

I am afraid that Iraq is our problem regardless of the outcome in November.

 

The only thing that might change that in the forseeable future is if things suddenly start looking up in Iraq. Allies will stumble forward if success appears to be imminent. Also, I guess if we suffered another horrific terrorist attack on our own soil, that could rally some sympathy.

 

Perhaps, but you are underestimating how much Bush has PO'd even our traditional allies. I think a change could not be any worse.

Things are not going to "look up" in Iraq any time soon, if ever. These people fought other Islamics, the Iranians, for 10 years tooth and nail. And while it isn't a religious war from our end, it certainly is becoming that from theirs.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid another terrorist attack on our soil just might result in more than a few "I told you so"'s from other nations, in view of our misguided policies.

[Mickey]

Your statement implies that we had two equally bad choices: Invade Iraq or not.  Not invading,  leaving a powerless Saddam, and going after Al Queda full strength,  we would not be in the soup we are today.  Iraq has been an expensive, unnecessary diversion that has not served this country.

 

Further, let's extrapolate your point:  Do we stick with the guy who made a huge blunder getting us into Iraq,  re-elect him and let him get us into the same situations in Syria, Iran, and God knows where else? 

 

We can't afford Bush anymore.

31232[/snapback]

 

First off, I have little interest in seeing Bush re-elected. I have been a consistent defender of Kerry here for a long time. Nothing I said should be extended or extrapolated to indicate that I think Bush should be re-elected. It is just that it is easy to paint any choice made with regard to Iraq as a bad one since all the choices were bad. Are you so sure that if we hadn't invaded Iraq we would be better off than we are now?

 

Prior to 9/11 we ignored the threats of middle east dictators, islamists and terrorists who announced that they were going to destroy the Great Satan. We ignored them because their threats were idle, they were unable to make good on their threats. Saddam is one of those people who made no secret of the fact that he woujld like to kill lots and lots and lots of Americans. 9/11 showed that we were in fact vulnerable to those who want to destroy us or at the least, alter our policies in the region. Should we have ignored Saddam the way we ignored AQ prior to 9/11? He didn't have WMD's, so what? The 9/11 terrorists didn't need WMD's to do the unthinkable thing that they did. He wasn't in cahoots with AQ you say? So what. Would he need to be in cahoots with them to kill us? I think he could do it quite well on his own with no help from OBL. He had said publicly many times that he would destroy America, what we did was to stop ignoring his threat as idle and took him at his word. That is the message of the Iraq invasion. We are not going to wait for a verbal threat to become a real threat, we will take you out first.

 

All in all, it may have been a mistake and I am not at all sure just what Bush's motivation was at the time. Bad choice to go in with insufficient allied support and before we were done in Afghanistan. Bad choice to do nothing and count on the good judgment of Saddam Hussein to refrain from terrorism after having been shown the way by AQ and incidentally, been upstaged by them. Bad choice to make propaganda by AQ easier in casting us as the enemy of Islam. Bad choice to hope that Saddam and after him, his miscreant sons, never obtain WMD's. One choice may have been less bad than the other, I won't argue that with you. I just don't think it is such an easy call to make.

 

I have considered the idea that ultimately, the Islamists in the Middle East would have left us no choice but war & terrorism on the one hand or abandoning Israel and the most important resource in the world on the other. They are not going to melt away and they are not going to compromise. They want us out of the region in total so they can then concentrate on taking out the corrupt governments in the area and set up a new Caliphate across the Arab world. That means no support of Israel, no support of secular governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. With us gone, will those governments be able to remain in power? They don't think so which is why they have allied themselves with us (and you thought is was our charm ). How would you like to have to buy our oil from OBL? In that context, taking out a loathsome dictator and hoping against hope to be able to establish some sort of stable, pro-western and oil rich state is not the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

If Kerry wins, he is going to have to finish fighting this war. If he wins, he will "own it". Lets not shackle him from the start by defining success as getting Germany and France to send troops to Baghdad.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

...and we are not getting out anytime soon.  Estimates range from five to ten years of US troop involvement in Iraq.  That means tens of thousands of US casualties. 

  Now that we have mistakenly committed our national prestige, uneccessarily PO'd  and mobilized most of Islam, and turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, we cannot leave for the forseeable future.  Doesn't matter who is President.

I don't SEE tens of thousands of casualties, honestly... How could that POSSIBLY happen in 5-10 years??

  Anybody who thinks this isn't true is lying to themselves. 

  This administration is already into minimizing the costs:  Rumsfeld just last week rationalized the loss of over 1,000 of our sons and daughters to serve his own arrogance and ignorance. 

True, true... the only thing a blind hawk understands is getting his ass kicked, I guess.

  Anybody stop to think how much another 5 years of this unneeded war will cost monetarily as well?  It might just bankrupt this country, people. 

I don't think so!! We can't even bankrupt OURSELVES with our foolish debt. We have MANY assets that will always keep us afloat, and besides, a lot of the money we owe to our OWN country!!

  Right now, we have no effective checks or balances in our federal government.  One party runs the executive, legislative, and yes, judicial branches.  See election 2000.

That can't be that way for long. The natural cycles of elections change that... the party system is at the heart of the problem.

  One thing you've got to hand to Bush, though, is the fact that he has manufactured a situation where we now must remain at war without forseeable end.  Osama is still out there, and by attacking Iraq, we have given him limitless new recruits.  The fact that Bin Laden et al still exist is Bush's fault.  Whatever happened to his "decapitate the leadership" strategy? Was Osama exempt?Instead, he and the neocons couldn't wait to put their 1998 plan to attack Iraq into action- which would have been a good thing if Iraq had indeed attacked us!  The problem is, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda- the operative word being HAD.  Now it's a terrorist nation- courtesy George Bush.

Now THAT I totally agree with; my whole objection to Iraq in a nutshell.

  Many on this board think I'm a Dem- actually, I am a registered Independent and voted for Daddy Bush in 1988.  Politically, I believe mainly in 2 things: split government and accountability.  If any one party has total control, I feel it is less of a Democracy.  And if someone screws up, you get rid of that person as soon as the next election comes up.

It is very safe to say that his father has made a better president, especially in foreign policy. It's NEVER been a democracy; we are more of a republic.

  Right now, the shortest distance between those two points is throwing George W. Bush right out on his ear.

We'll see if that happens, with dead meat running against him!

[Captain America]

True, but with new leadership we'd at least have a chance to "rent it out" to other countries.

31221[/snapback]

To who? France and Germany ,Kerry has already lost and you and the rest of the libbers know it , The only one dumber than Bush is Kerry :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

To who? France and Germany ,Kerry has already lost and you and the rest of the libbers know it , The only one dumber than Bush is Kerry :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

31396[/snapback]

 

I disagree. Ted Kennedy and Dick Armey are DEFINITELY more stupid than any of them

[LasBillz]

I don't SEE tens of thousands of casualties, honestly... How could that POSSIBLY happen in 5-10 years??

True, true... the only thing a blind hawk understands is getting his ass kicked, I guess.

 

I don't think so!! We can't even bankrupt OURSELVES with our foolish debt. We have MANY assets that will always keep us afloat, and besides, a lot of the money we owe to our OWN country!!

 

That can't be that way for long. The natural cycles of elections change that... the party system is at the heart of the problem.

 

Now THAT I totally agree with; my whole objection to Iraq in a nutshell.

 

It is very safe to say that his father has made a better president, especially in foreign policy. It's NEVER been a democracy; we are more of a republic.

 

We'll see if that happens, with dead meat running against him!

31371[/snapback]

 

VT, I like the tag line about Lindell at the bottom of your note.

 

That relates in a way to how I view Bush's attitude on the stump.

 

Imagine if Donahoe called a press conference, came out and said:

 

"Ryan Lindell is a likeable guy. Good looking, comes from a nice family. True, he has cost us some games, and in the future he will cost us more games. Honestly, he can't kick over 40 yards to save his a$$. He has poor judgement and bad ability at his job. But if we brought in another kicker, who knows what could happen? So, we're keeping Lindell. At least we know what he stands for."

 

Donahoe would be stupid to do that, just like the American electorate would be in re-nominating a known failure.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

THANKS! I wanted him gone all offseason, but it never happened. I TOTALLY agree with all of the comparisons to Vinatieri... you CANNOT have a defensive team without a good kicker! Anyways...

 

The PROBLEM is that (in reference to the election) we'd be substituting Lindell with a Jose Cortez, and we don't have any Elams, or Christies, or Longwells OUT THERE to pick up, from an analytical standpoint. It's a matter of who sucks less... I'm going Kerry, because I know he won't hit anyone in the stands with an errant football if he kicked!

[LasBillz]

THANKS! I wanted him gone all offseason, but it never happened. I TOTALLY agree with all of the comparisons to Vinatieri... you CANNOT have a defensive team without a good kicker! Anyways...

 

The PROBLEM is that (in reference to the election) we'd be substituting Lindell with a Jose Cortez, and we don't have any Elams, or Christies, or Longwells OUT THERE to pick up, from an analytical standpoint. It's a matter of who sucks less... I'm going Kerry, because I know he won't hit anyone in the stands with an errant football if he kicked! 

32289[/snapback]

 

I'm going Kerry too, for reasons stated above and the fact that Bush wants to drive 77,000 tons of high level nuclear waste past my house and then dump it outside of my town. Kerry has publicly vowed to stop it on behalf of national (antiterrorist) interest.

 

On a Bills note, isn't Morten Anderson available?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I'm going Kerry too, for reasons stated above and the fact that Bush wants to drive 77,000 tons of high level nuclear waste past my house and then dump it outside of my town.  Kerry has publicly vowed to stop it on behalf of national (antiterrorist) interest.

 

  On a Bills note, isn't Morten Anderson available?

32420[/snapback]

 

I dunno... is Al Lewis still available?? HAHAHA!

(Al Lewis was Grandpa on the Munsters... he ran for office for NY, he's over 80!)

 

He tried that in Texas, but they were worried it would pollute the oil!!!

 

Just kidding!!

[stuckincincy]

I disagree. Ted Kennedy and Dick Armey are DEFINITELY more stupid than any of them

31397[/snapback]

 

Dick Armey hasn't been a Member of Congress for the past 3 years.

[Tux of Borg]

I'm pissed off that the Jihad is now being fought over in Iraq and not on US soil.

 

I'm pissed off because we now have an invading force near Sudan and Iran

 

I'm pissed off because my kids won't have to deal with Saddam when they get older.

[LasBillz]

I'm pissed off that the Jihad is now being fought over in Iraq and not on US soil.

 

I'm pissed off because we now have an invading force near Sudan and Iran 

 

I'm pissed off because my kids won't have to deal with Saddam when they get older.

32597[/snapback]

 

The fact that Bush let Osama go by instead going after Saddam should piss you off- Al Queda survives , the jihad goes on because of Bush's incompetence.

 

We're not going into the Sudan because they have no oil. As for Iran, they know we're not coming after them- another result of Bush shooting off all his guns in the wrong place- Iraq.

 

Now that Bush has us in a long-term, misguided quagmire, don't be surprised if your kids will have to deal with something much worse than Saddam. My oldest boy is fourteen, and I can see it coming.

 

Remember- Saddam was powerless, inspectors found nothing- the neocons hatched their plan in 1998 and mistakenly used it in response to 9/11/01.

[DC Tom]

  Remember- Saddam was powerless, inspectors found nothing- the neocons hatched their plan in 1998 and mistakenly used it in response to 9/11/01.

33814[/snapback]

 

Hatched it in 1978, actually.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Dick Armey hasn't been a Member of Congress for the past 3 years.

32555[/snapback]

 

So? He WAS!