No, I got the point just fine and understand it fully. What we are doing is fighting the bully on his turf as we speak. The "bully" in this case has no intention of fighting a conventional war nor do they recognize any kind of human decency.
Yes, but in your disregard for why much of the rest of the world didn't agree with our actions in Iraq, WE are viewed as the bully. I might point out that the beheading rate didn't increase until sometime AFTER the "mission" was "accomplished.
I don't see how you can correlate how we are being a bully in this fight. We were ruthlessly attacked many times with the latest being on 9/11. You DO remember that don't you??
As a matter of fact I do. I even supported GW when he went after the culprits in Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with that attack, yet Saddam was the focal point for our war on terror, and the person responisible has been reduced to "not that important". And the rest of the world views us as the bully.
People jumping out of buildings over 100 stories high? Airplanes crashing into skyscrapers, the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA?
What did that have to do with Iraq...why wasn't the job finished Afghanistan? Why is the mastermind of those attacks reduced to a bit player. I know you view the war in Iraq as the frontline in the war on terror....I view the Iraq war kind of like the OJ trial...and the "dream team" of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld have just divulged the equivalent that Dennis Furhman has used the "n-word" in the past 10 years.
What we are doing is fighting for our way of life. France, Russia and Germany aren't onboard because they chose not to be. They were making money hand over fist with Saddam all the while telling us, our supposed ally, they were abiding by the sanctions they themselves pushed for.
And only 8 days before the first Gulf War, GHW Bush was trying to improve relations with Iraq and told him that his issue with Kuwait was not a priority for the US. That tells me that he saw an opportunity for he US corporations to "make money hand over fist" in Iraq. In 8 short days - business partner to threat to the civilized world. But....he had UN support military efforts. But hey...when WE wanted to make money hand over fist with a madman, that's a different story, right?
Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouths. Our people have done a magnificent job in Iraq. Schools are open, raw sewage doesn't run in the streets as before, people aren't being mass-murdered and the people are actually going to have a say in their government.
That's fine and good, but I'm sorry, it wasn't worth the loss of one American life. Meanwhile, back home, our schools suffer, and while Bush wants the "Hillary Health Plan" in place for Iraqi's...it's not good enough for US citizens. That's both sides of a mouth there.
The pacifist line that the democrats took during the '90's didn't work and Bush was left to clean up the mess left for him.
Iraq wasn't a mess when Clinton was in Office. Bush made the mess. Now we have to clean it up.
As for the election we will see and if the reverse is true this republican will not whine and cry, act like a child, spew venom like the left has for the last four years, lie and make fabrications like the democrats have, tell the elderly the left is going to starve their grandchildren and take away their social security. That is unAmerican and unpatriotic and something I would never do unlike those on the liberal side.
That's very big of you, but for 8 years before Bush, many republicans were crying and whining about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monicagate, Troopergate...the list goes on.
While I wouldn't like the outcome I would live with it and just because my side didn't win I would not call for an end to the electoral college. Unlike the democrats I don't think, and the majority of the American people don't think they are smarter than our founding fathers.
I'll bet you that if the reverse does occur, and Bush wins the popular but not the electoral, many will be eating their words.
