What can I say? Bush is a lucky man. As much as I dislike him, I have to admit he can always turn it around when low rating approval appears. Seems he can do it even on vacation. Laugh as loud as you can, neocons, as long as he can turn the economy around like he did to himself, I have no problem if he makes another term.
I am just happy for our troops. I still think it will be 10-20 years before we know the real impact of what we have done in Iraq. If we have a stable democracy which led to the fall of Iran and Syria...then Bush & Blair will go down in history as men of great deeds. If Iraq falls apart, they will go down as failures. You have to admire them for having the sack to do what is right despite what a lot of our sniveling allies said... DD
Amen, DaDakota. The naysayers and bitter political opponents want to judge the merits of a war on the 10 weeks immediately following its end. This is a ridiculous, arbitrary timeline that does not accurately gauge the full impact of the conflict. It took a *leader* to champion such a bold attempt at reshaping the unstable landscape that is the Middle East. Kudos to George Bush for providing that leadership. Imagine evaluating the merits of WWII after only 10 weeks? Simply ludicrous.
Now if only these great men will lead their coalitions to free the people of North Korea, Liberia, Sudan, Angola, etc. who are all suffering under the brutal fists of evil sadistic mad men who make Hussein look like a teddy bear. Unlike Clinton, who watched genocide in Rwanda, Bush's great moral compass should lead him to stop the slave and sex trades being exploited in the Sudan war and the brutallity of the Charles Taylor regime in Liberia. Surely, history will smile upon the great leaders who display the sack to intervene in these humanitarian crises without regard for natural resources or geopolitics--unlike our cowardly allies who only opposed the war in Iraq to protect their business interests and who now want in on the resources we rightfully freed for the Iraqi people.
you are living in a fantasy world if you think Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons... it is a nice thing to fall back on now that it is obvious there are no WMD, there was no plan for occupation, but we sure as heck had Halliburton lined up to take care of those oil fields!
JeffB, You need to use the winky guy then. Personally, I think we have been the world's police for the last 30 years, and it is about time we took the reigns on that role and run with it. Hopefully Syria and Iran will fall with a stable democratic Iraq flourishing right next to them. DD
Hey if we are going to kill a bunch of Americans and Iraqis, we might as well kill Sadam's two no good sons. However, how does this possiblly justify the Bush's Administrations deceptions leading to the war? Sorry to interject some logic into your attempted celebrations. If 10 weeks ago you would find that merely killing Sadam's sons was enough to bring joy to the warmakers and give Bush some breathing room perhaps from the continual charges of using false evidence would you have believed it. Sorry, but Bush still lied and the killing of these two guys isn't going to help him much with that problem.
Doesn't sound like they're as excited as you think TJ: Question: When did you hear the news today about the apparent deaths of Uday and Kusay Hussein and what's your reaction? Answer: "we heard it around mid-afternoon somewhere around lunch it really doesn't matter to us cuz it's not gonna stop the attacks, whether they're caught dead or not. mainly i think it will help out the civilians around here maybe they're happy for it but it really doesn't change anything we do" - Specialist Shane Brooks, soldier with the US Army's 2nd Brigade of the Third Infantry Division to Neal Conan on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" His interview begins 35 minutes into the show. Real Player or Windows Media audio format
I think you're mistaken glynch. interview with area man: Q: How many American lives would you sacrifice in order to kill Sad.. A: er.. my own life? Am I sacrificing my own life? Q: no.... No. How many TROOPS would you sacrifice... A: ohhh!!! Q: in order to kill Saddam's sons? A: hmmm... I don't know. Maybe, er. 500. Q: What would you say if we could kill Saddam's sons for roughly 200 some odd soldiers, and at the outset, one hundred billion dollars?? A: Well I'd say you got yourself a deal. Q: Great. Thanks for talking to us. A: Thank you.
Go back to the SOTU2003 and it was down the list as one of the reasons indicated. IMHO, the Dems made it the issue it is. GWB's failure was to let them dictate the conversation.
Gotta agree with you there. here's a little article from Newsday, and I don't think they're buying into hype. The had a reporter on the ground for some of these observations. Amazing. And outlaw, how dare you actually find a quotation from a soldier. It's much easier for us to treat them as robots and then say we support them when we parrot the president's every whim.
Could you please point out the part of 1441 (that thing that allegedly gave us legal justification for war) that deals with freeing the Iraqi people? Great news on the deaths of these two scumbags. Hopefully the attacks on our troops will decline and maybe we can get them home in less than the 5 or 6 years they're expected to be under sniper fire from Baathists.
what spin??? all they asked was this soldier's response to it. i'm sure NPR called the army and asked to speak specifically to an unhappy soldier. before the inteviewed Brooks, they talked to Retired Col. Gary Anderson of the Marines and he has been pretty supportive of the administration. say what you want about NPR on the whole but Neal Conan and Talk of the Nation is truly as fair and balanced as you can get.
