on another note it's interesting how Hillary is staking out a position on Iraq that may win her the election. She's not blinded by her hatred of Bush as most Dem's are. She's stated that she is pleased with the Iraqi elections, opposes a US withdrawal, and laid out a doctrine of vigorous engagement. I don't think she'll have a prob in the primaries as the other Dem's feel overconfident as they take their emotions for facts and obsess over nonissues. A negative campaign is a loser and Hillary seems about the only front runner to know that.

go for it

http://www.google.com/search?biw=772&hl=en&q=Economic+Costs+of++WTC&btnG =Google+Search

If any liberal here was happy with the contents of W's speach, I would be shocked. No matter what he said, the W haters would jump all over it like garbage ducks on a city landfill. This speech was obviously designed to shore up support from people in the middle that have been being flooded with negative press from the liberal media.

Tim, I would have been happy if he had laid out any kind of plan.

I would have been happy if he hadn't yet again conflated 9/11 with Iraq

I would have been happy if he hadn't used a "support our troops" backdrop to sure up his speech.

Tim, the man didn't say anything we haven't heard 100 times already.

Somehow I just knew the "liberal media" was going to be a culprit, the bastards!

Tim, just how do you put a positive spin on 1700 dead?

CNN regularly runs fallen soldiers and inspiring stories of soldiers making a difference in Iraq.

Shaun,

30,000 men died building the Panama canal, was it worth it Shaun? How many men was it worth?

You don't have to be a liberal to be worried about the direction W is taking us. I am far from liberal (heck, I work for a very large defense contractor on a classified weapon project) and I think W is nuts.

Len - a project like the Panama Canal (that resulted in so many deaths) would not be tolerated in today's world.

You don't have to be a liberal to be worried about the direction W is taking us. I am far from liberal (heck, I work for a very large defense contractor on a classified weapon project) and I think W is nuts.

Len - a project like the Panama Canal (that resulted in so many deaths) would not be tolerated in today's world.

Men who went entirely of their own free will.

Different time, different reason, different everything.

the Right's attempt at conflating honorable, worthwhile endeavors with Iraq has got to stop.

Maybe a 12-step program?

mehodone in place of Kool-Aid®?

Men who went entirely of their own free will.

Different time, different reason, different everything.

the Right's attempt at conflating honorable, worthwhile endeavors with Iraq has got to stop.

Maybe a 12-step program?

methodone in place of Kool-Aid®?

You mean todays America, trust me 30k people still mean nothing to many countries.

Wait, that can't be right, America is the cruel heartless country.....I need to think this over.

Not so much thinking it over as thinking, period.....

My God, Len, can ANYONE say ANYTHING contrary to your beliefs without running the risk of sarcasm?

I believe very little of either side's rhetoric. That in itself makes me a target since I do not fall easily in either "armed camp".

The statement "1700 dead" is really a partial truth and misleading. Those are only the American soldiers who volunteered for military service and paid with their lives. What about the ~12,000 who are maimed, many with a fate worse than death? (Formerly healthy young people who are paralyzed, can't have sex, etc., etc..)....

What about the *god knows how many* Iraqis killed or maimed by the direct result of our actions/decision to invade? And if you are going to say that it was the same or worse before the war in Iraq, cite real evidence. As bad as Hussein was at times, I vehemently disagree w/ that argument. Iraq was a relatively peaceful, stable place, albeit far from democratic.

You do not get the American public's backing to invade a sovereign country, no matter how odious its leader, with arguments about "long term geopolitical strategy", spurious "big picture/global war on terrorism" hogwash, (about as effective as the "war on drugs"), :rolleyes:, and amid Bush's constant reciting his handlers' words about democracy I want to remind him that in a true democracy there is transparency in government. Populations are not deceived about minor issues such as the need to go to war, etc...

As for the military audience, I would love to talk to some of them privately and ask how they feel about the administration being wrong about the threat that they used to rationalise the invasion, (oops), :rolleyes:, and the overall competence of the people who have made the key decisions since the operation started, such as "underestimating" (not estimating) the insurgency, not having the troop strength to secure the country, (or even Baghdad), lack of equipment such as armor that has cost countless American lives, etc....

You don't get the public to sign off on a deal like this, or get troops to march over some ill-defined and misguided neocon political theory about shifting the political balance of the world through overthrowing foreign governments. I can't wait until other countries start following our legal precedent. :rolleyes:

They have abused the electorate's goodwill after 9/11, the military's dedication to mission and service, and obviously will continue to do so.

Mark my words on this thread: The nightmare of this wretched, misguided policy will not be remotely brought to any kind of good resolution during Bush's eight years in office. It will be left to his successor, who will inherit the most FUBAR country and world that any US president has ever seen. God knows who is going to pay the big dollar stipends for public speaking gigs for the asswipes who engineered this mess, (the usual profession for retired public figures). :(

EDITED for Freudian slip...

Is there such a thing as a Freudian typo? You know that when this whole mess tips over, there'll be pretzel logic applied to make it all Bill Clinton's fault.

Shaun, you would not have been HAPPY if he had said any of the above. My point I guess, was that this thread will not change anyones minds on the right or left. it just gives us a place to throw mud back and forth.


Here is something for you to chew on and spit back with:

The reason he did not say anything different is that he has the fortitude to do stay on course no matter how bumpy it is.

As to my interpretation of the bias media, well irregardless of how you see it, I am right.
;) :D

Just playful jabs Bob:)

I just get tired of the xxx deaths crap, it could be x deaths, xx deaths, or xxxxdeaths and they would be used as a tool either way. Either it's worth it or it's not, I wish those on the left would quit envoking emotion as a debating tool, it's pathetic.

Wow, you're right. Freud would be proud. I was actually thinking about the beautiful country that Dumbo inherited from Clinton in Jan. 2001 when I typed that. Ahh, the good old/long gone days. :(

Sorry, some of us see the "right" as all emotion, to the exclusion of logic.

But if you are going to categorize concern over wasting the lives of young Americans as just being 'emotional,' I have to ask: does it mean anything at all to you?

Yes, that's reserved solely for the right, evoking the emotion of 9/11 to get us into this turkey in the first place.