<p>“So, is getting out the solution to that problem?”</p>
<p>Uh, I would think so. The evil monkey-man who got us into this UNNECESSARY war needs to figure out how to undo all the damage he’s done. What an unbelievable disaster!!</p>
<p>Again, that’s what’s so sad–a trillion dollars or more perhaps and countless human lives lost because some cowboy decided this was a good idea. And, I’m sad to say, persuaded people I expected to know better to go along. And getting out will be tragic too. I remember the justification for staying on in Vietnam. We couldn’t dishonor the lives of those who died by leaving. So another 20,000 or so of our sons and daughters died and how many others are homeless, disabled and suffering from PTSD for a war that did no one any good? But would staying longer have helped?</p>
<p>
Some cowboy and 77 Senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Chuck Shumer and Harry Reid.</p>
<p><a href=“U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected”>U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected;
<p>I worked with the homeless at a community center several years ago. A number of our “regulars” were Vietnam vets–drug addicts, alcholics, totally broken both mentally and physically, many of them suffering from PTSD. They had served their country, put their lives on the line, and then were utterly forgotten. It was shameful. … I’m certain a similar fate awaits many of the young soldiers that Bush has sent to maim and be maimed in Iraq. He is truly a man without a heart or a soul.</p>
<p>sjmom–I agree. To this day I’ve never forgiven Hillary Clinton for her vote allowing Bush to do as he pleased in Iraq. At least John Edwards has had the decency to abjectly apologize for his vote.</p>
<p>I agree-- I still call him some cowboy, but everyone who voted yes voted yes.</p>
<p>“Some cowboy and 77 Senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Chuck Shumer and Harry Reid.”</p>
<p>And Al Gore cheering for the “final solution” to Saddam from the sidelines.</p>
<p>bethie–You’re much nicer than I am. You see our prez as a “cowboy,” while I will forever see him as an “evil monkey-man.” But really, words cannot express how I really feel about this person, the most dangerous, disasterous political figure to come along in my lifetime. Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>"the most dangerous, disasterous political figure to come along in my lifetime. "</p>
<p>I think that title belongs to Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>I beg to differ. Bush has created far more death and mayhem than Carter ever dreamed of.</p>
<p>Carter was the one to set the stage for much of what we are dealing with today.</p>
<p>That’s just ludicrous. Carter had nothing to do with Bush’s outrageous invasion of Iraq for no reason on God’s green earth.</p>
<p>Without 9/11, Bush would not have been able to prosecute this war. He was able to convince most of America that Saddam was responsible, at least in part, for the attack on the Towers.</p>
<p>Congress went along- they were fooled into thinking Bush actually would use force as a last resort, and everyone was raw from the Towers attack, and still trusted the president to tell the truth. I remember many email conversations with Jane Harmon at that time, trying to understand why they were giving Bush a free pass to go with Iraq when it was clear that Osama wasn’t there. Her response, as was the response of many Dems at the time, was that they felt they needed to give Bush the support in order to show that we were presenting a united front, in order to show strength. She was certain that he would explore all avenues before using force, and that force was very unlikely, but that the permission to use force was important in persuading Saddam to give up his weapons. While they were voting for the resolution, the USS Abraham Lincoln was already in the gulf (my nephew was on it), and the “plan” was ready to go. The administration was just working to get the American people to buy it.</p>
<p>Cheney/Bush did a good job of selling their war. Congress and most of the country believed them then. We know better now - Most of Congress and most of the country. Who wouldn’t believe Colin Powell as he sat there pointing to the trucks supposedly containing nuclear facilities - which have since been proven false.<br>
I can almost understand why people, even those in Congress, believed them then, in the shadow of 9/11. But its 2007, and we have a lot more information about how this war began, and how it is turning out. </p>
<p>We have created what we most feared. And he’s still trying to sell us on the occupation.</p>
<p>Hindoo,</p>
<p>That’s the problem when you look at events with a near-term focus which is what you and the Dems are doing now with Iraq. Everything that we do will have a long term impact - whether it is abandoning an ally in Vietnam or letting Iraq devolve into chaos and potentially bringing the Middle East with it.</p>
<p>In the case of Jimmy Carter’s unintended consequences of his disastrous Presidency, he set the stage for Iran being in its current state, for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and rise of al Qaeda). Also, had we continued to be an ally of Iran, it is not likely that the Iran/Iraq war nor the Kuwait invasion would have happened. Carter was such a feckless president that even Gene McCarthy said:
</p>
<p>Read the entire series, but at least this segment:
<a href=“http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264899644231746[/url]”>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264899644231746</a></p>
<p>
Of course not, no Bushevik would think so. Otoh, I find it entirely germane to debate why we got into Iraq and how we’ve done once there. Busheviks are asking us to believe that those who effed up the first two parts should be allowed to determine the next phase as well. Sorry, no sale. As it is, Bush is extremely fortunate that we deal with these matters via elections. I still think a queue of Americans kicking his ass from the White House to Crawford, Texas would be symbolically appropriate on Jan. 20, 2009.</p>
<p>You’d probably have to have a lottery among those competing for the honor.</p>
<p>As for longterm impacts, I think Bush has screwed America quite enough. It’ll take a couple of decades of sober, calculated effort to recover.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the foreign policy mess can be turned around quite quickly. Clinton has said that she is going to make a full-court press to re-introduce the United States to the world between election day and her inauguration, enlisting both Bill Clinton and Bush, Senior to travel and restate the United States’ desire to play a constructive role in the world. I think that the popularity of the Clintons, the symbolism of electing a woman, and a concerted campaign-like sales job can produce a very rapid turnaround in how we are viewed, which in turn escalates cooperation immensely.</p>
<p>I don’t think much of anyone was listening this time. Once we listened to the BS from A.K.L.C.S. Petraeus, there wasn’t much to hear. </p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Asside from all of the previous, 77 posts, don’t y’all think that this was one of his better speeches, possibly the best ?</p>
<p>The bar was set pitifully low.</p>
<p>“Asside from all of the previous, 77 posts, don’t y’all think that this was one of his better speeches, possibly the best ?”</p>
<p>Oh yeah, for sure. The best lies, the best deceptions, the best myth telling, the best “Look mom - I can say these big words!!! Heheheh.”</p>