The Democrats forced a closed session this week. In what is coming out to be one of the worst years of Bush's Presidency, recent polls show the majority of America against his policies in Iraq, views on the economy, and he is supported by just over 1/3 of the country. The indictment of Scooter Libby has also tainted an already shady Bush administration.

This year has also taken us to new lows. We have surpassed the 2,000 person death toll for Americans in the sequel to Vietnam. Bush has also seen himself strongly criticized for his poor views on immigration, but he was fired upon on that issue by his own Republicans. And we must not forget the failure at appointing Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, his first choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. This year has also taken us to record highs in the price of oil.

And where oh where is Osama Bin Laden? Does anyone remember him? You know, he was responsible for this:


Five years into his Presidency, we've been promised many things, one of them was that we started the war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Now the Democrats are finally taking a charge. All the Republicans in Congress can do is sit back and say, "No, this is a political stunt." All I can say is: No, it's not. Bush lying to us was a political stunt. This is a push to find the truth. The truth to why we entered Iraq. The truth to how Bush has managed to lie to us through his teeth and get away with it. The truth as to how the supposedly best intelligence in the world managed to screw up and cost Americans billions and ruin thousands of lives of families of young boys just a year older than me.

i think everyone realized that going into iraq for the so called weapons of mass destruction was a stupid idea. i think most people down in the states are starting to see that.

Debatable. And indictment is simply an accusation, it doesn't prove one as guilty or innocent. What happens if Libby is exonerated, which is entirely possible?

As I've said before, President Reagan endured the Iran-Contra Scandal, which was far, far bigger than this Plumegate. And he weathered the storm as the teflon President that he was. Not only that, he was (im&mopho) one of the best President's in the history of our nation.

Please explain to me how President Bush lied about the War in Iraq. Because we must all be missing it.

I mean, I've seen holes shot in just about every conspiratorial reason why we went to Iraq. For example -

"We went to war for oil!"

Of course, that's why we have record high gasoline prices.

"We went to war because of a personal vendetta against Hussein."

If that was true, why the hell didn't we just have him whacked? Why are we going to so much trouble to rebuild the nation?

"We went to war to line Halliburton's pockets."

Ah, interesting, and I'm sure that Cheney et al are making quite a profit off of this war. However, it isn't unprecedented for a company that is connected to a Presidential administration to make money off a war...just look at Vietnam.

"Saddam wasn't the real enemy!"

M'kay. Interesting reason. I'm really confused, because on one hand, Pat, for instance, said that President Bush went to Iraq instead of wholly concentrating on Bin Laden.

Yet, wasn't this the same Patrick who demanded Bush send troops into the Sudan simultaneous with the Iraq and Afghanistani wars?

So, I'd really like you to explain how this war is a political stunt, and validate your statement.

Cite.

well, i wonder what happened to those wmd? i guess they just evaporated into thin air...i mean it's not like anyone would lie and use that as an excuse to invade iraq, right? :rolleyes:

But why? I'm still waiting to here a logical reason from the people who blast President Bush because there were no WMD's. With words like "excuse" you imply an alterior motive. I'd like to hear what it is - what was President Bush's motive behind invading Iraq then? I've already put to rest quite a few of them in my first post. Shall we try another?

I'm waiting.

ok, how about you give me a good reason why he went in there...and please don't tell me he was a threat to the u.s. cause we all know he wasn't. and don't tell me it was to liberate the people of iraq...because when has america ever really cared much about other nations? as long as other nations don't mess with the american bottom line, its all fair.

Mother always said it was rude to answer a question with another question...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what Bush's alterior motive (which your aforementioned statement implies) was for going into Iraq. Unless, of course, you're just recycling baseless anti-Bush rhetoric?

oil...plain and simple. yeah ok, your oil prices have gone up, but hell lets not forget what katrina did...lets not remember that it was the hurricane that drove up prices in the states and in canada. and remember, oil in iraq doesn't mean lower prices for you...what do you think this is a fair nation?

Double J, I think it's because free minded people the world over feel betrayed by Mr. Bush. The President as the leader of the free world has the responsibility of using his power in the most efficient way to promote democracy and build bridges between cultures with the goal of peace and international economic success.

Surely you cannot deny that Mr. Bush was not as forthright as perhaps he could have been in presenting the case for the war on Iraq to the American people and to the world. He put forth many reasons for invading the cradle of civilization e.g. WMDs, to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of one of the world's most brutal dictators, to break the ground for democracy in the Middle East, to protect America's allies in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc.) But his most blatant disregard for the evidence at hand was shown in his and his administration's attempt to link the regime of Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. This claim has of course been proven false over and over but the fact that it shifted the focus of the war on terrorism from Afghanistan to Iraq is probably the most important consequence of Gulf War II.

Having said all this, arguing over the causes of the war seems quite pointless after two years. What should be focused on is the progress being made in Iraq and the problems that have arisen. I do agree that equal media coverage should be given to both the positive and the negative but as we all know different media outlets have different agendas so equal coverage seems to be unavailable at least from the traditional media sources. Many people have died as a result of this war and if Iraq descends into chaos and civil war and the Americans are forced to retreat without having accomplished the seemingly unreachable goal of establishing a stable and prosperous Western style liberal democracy all those deaths will have been in vain. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I know that bickering over facts simply to win arguments does nothing to better the situation.

Umm...yes. Since of course, Katrina only occurred over two years after the decision to go into Iraq.

Keep reaching.

You just defeated the argument made by your first statement.

If we went into Iraq for oil, and by your own admission, Iraq oil doesn't mean lower prices, there is no reason to invade for oil if it means it will cost the United States more.

Try again?

Well, they can feel betrayed all they want, but I don't see why. It was international intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMD's (though frequently the biological and chemical weapons which we did find, and I have mentioned time and time again are ignored).

And the United States is promoting democracy. And plurality. And economic success. And personal freedoms. All of these things are being realized for the first time in Iraq because of the coalition intervention.

No doubt that removing Saddam Hussein from power in 1991 would've changed our current history. But would it have been probable for Bush Sr. to have sent in U.S. troops to establish a government in Iraq? Would it have been possible, considering what our mission was in the Gulf War?

As far as Saddam being connected to 9/11, while he wasn't directly connected, the 9/11 commission had concluded that he was in contact with Al Qaeda agents at some level. If I recall (I don't have the 9/11 commission book in front of me) there was a report that said that within 6 months of 9/11 Saddam was supposed to have been in possession of WMD's.

So no, while Saddam wasn't directly linked to the terrorist attacks on September the 11th, it should be clear now that his regime was part of the problem in the Middle East.

Agreed. And I do think we are reaching critical mass, as I've said in other threads, regarding Iraq. The time is closing quickly when coalition forces will leave and the Iraqi people, the majority of which support the U.S. and their new government, have to stand up to the insurgency and take them out once and for all.

last polls i saw the majority of the iraq people were not very please with having the u.s. soldiers there.

The Brookings Institute report, which I've cited in another threads and on my blog, has the following relevant statistics:

-67% of Iraqis believe Iraq is moving in the right direction, compared to 51% in 2004

-82% believe there life will be better a year from now, compared to 65% a year ago

-only 4% support insurgent violence

-60% of Iraqis believe there life has improved after the removal of Saddam Hussein

-70% feel the elected Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people as a whole

That's the essence of the problem right there. If the American and Coalition troops leave now or in the near future there will only be one possible outcome for Iraq and brother it's not gonna be pretty. I don't like seeing Iraqi civilians and American/Coalition soldiers dying daily anymore than you do but the Americans and to a lesser extent the rest of the coalition have a duty to stay in Iraq until the job is completely done. Whether this means leaving troops in the country for one more year, five more years or twenty five more years only time will tell. In any case it would be disastrous for Iraq and for the reputation of the U.S. to cut and run at this critical juncture. If the Americans do pull out in the very near future a civil war that will make the Lebanese civil war look like a day in the park will erupt and an ungodly loss of life will be the result. I don't think anyone even the most fervent enemy of the Bush administration wants this to happen.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. After all, most of the democrats planning to run in 2008 are using the Iraq War the same way they claim President Bush used 9/11 to get re-elected, so no, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a Democratic strategy were to hope for a collosal failure if it ensures a DNC candidate in the White House in 2008.

Americans should unify to get this damn war over with. The sooner the better.