Will Democrats ever be happy?

[RJ]

(Pulling hair out as he writes)What is done in Iraq is done. Bush is a wreckless fool who governs with his "strong will and core values" rather than looking at actual data and listening to people with more extensive knowledge. THAT is what makes me dislike him, along with his budget disasters and his foolish insistance that the economy is strong.

No apology would make me happy. If someone did something horrible to you that caused permanant damage to your life or well being would an apology make you happy? If Ken Lay or that Scruchi(sp?) character from Health South apologized for their ineptitude at their respective corporations and directly(or indirectly) causing all those people to lose everything they worked hard for, would that make the shareholders happy or would they still dislike them and consider them crooks and liars?

There are a select few limited things that I actually agree with Bush on believe it or not. Iraq isn't one of them and it's just unforgivable. I bet there were a lot of Republicans who said the same thing about Johnson in the 60's.

[RJ]

Bad enough to do all this apologizing (and insincerely, I might add) when your transgression is lying about banging your intern on the semen-stained oval office floor, but to apologize for policies takes it to a new and dangerous level.

I'll agree that it would be a mistake to pull out all together. I'd like to see some kind of different action/plan than what's going on right now since what's happening is barely working. I might even be encouraged if something would change over there. But please, don't compare starting a war under the most procurious circumstances and habitually changing your objective about it while armed conflict is still going on to banging an intern.

[RJ]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

2) Secure Iraq - Succeeding

3) Transfer Power - Done

4) Hold Elections - Done

5) Write Constitution - Almost Done

6) Hold Elections - Planned

7) Wear down Insurgency - Succeeding

8 ) Train Iraqi Soldiers - Succeeding

9) Remove most soldiers - Planned

Are the borders in Iraq secure? Judging from the fact that most insurgients are coming from other countries, I'd say no and we're not succeeding. How many Iraqi security forces are trained? Judging from the fact that we never hear anything from this administration on this issue and that they have exagerated the facts about it in the past, I'd say no to that one as well.  If American troops left, all out civil war would break out and the Security forces trained there would collapse instantly. Withdrawl troops? There will always be a military presence in Iraq the same as there was in Germany and Japan after WWII and Korea after the Korean war. When you say "wear down insurgency," not to personally attack you but Cheney said the same thing a couple months ago and several commanders over there say otherwise. The insurgency is as strong as its been and what people don't realize is that the war is recruiting new insurgients and potential Al-Quaida operatives in great proportions. The war in Iraq isn't detering terrorism; it's encouraging it!

Make them come out of hiding so we can kill them there, rather than at home. The more energy they are putting into fighting us in Iraq, the less time they have to plan terrorist strikes in the west.

The notion that fighting the terrorists in Iraq means that we won't have to face them on the homeland is specious reasoning. By using this logic, I could say my computer keeps me safe from mad cow disease. It doesn't, but I don't have mad cow disease, do I? What about the terrorist attacks in England? What about the terror cells in uncovered in California? Just because they're fighting there doesn't mean they can't do anything here.

[RJ]

Milk and Cereal, I think you're confusing a couple of things, here. I think the majority of people who hate Bush hate the man because of the views and policies, not the policies because of the man. It's not as though people hate the Iraq war because Bush started it. They hate the war and therefore hate the man.

Fact: I don't like George W. Bush at all. Fact: the reason I dislike him so is because of the war in Iraq and his complete budget mismanagement. These are the two major problems I have with him. If you're pro-war, that's one thing I suppose. There are huge issues on its validity in the first place, but that's one thing. The budget, however, is something entirely different. How someone could take over a budget that was balanced and repeatedly turn out 3-400+ billion dollar deficits and then claim he's laying the groundwork for our country's success for years to come is just plain foolish. I don't know how anyone could justify this and keep a straight face as they're doing it. He thinks it's some great accomplishment that the deficit is "down" to 330 billion. He thinks it's great budget management to eventually produce a 200 billion dollar hole anually(that's one of his campaign promises believe it or not). There are other issues, but those two stand out in my mind like a sore thumb. If he had never done these two things, I'd be able to tolerate him.

It has been mentioned that insurgients are taking casualties at a much higher rate than the American counterparts in Iraq. While this is very true, it still doesn't mean that it's OK for our military to continually take casualties. I'm not at the point yet in which I think we should pull out all together, but I think a new strategy has been called for for a long time now. Meanwhile, Dubya sits at home insisting he's right on everything. How long can we go on losing on average 2-3 men per day over there?

I'm sorry if you dislike negativity on these issues, but I think these are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. Insisting everything's just great just isn't a solution.

[RJ]

There are some who want us to lose because it would be an embarrassment to Bush, regardless of the terrible consequences this would have on the country.  These people play up every negative sign without looking at the whole picture.

THis is the 3rd time I've quoted you. I'm not picking on you personally, but I just have to say I think that there are an equal number of people who want to continue as we are simply because it would be an embarrasment to Bush to do anything differently in Iraq. There are also a signifigant number of people who ride in their cars with "support the troops and their families" signs attached. Well, one of their family members(Cindy Sheehan) has something to say. The soldier who asked Donald Crumsfield last fall about the armor on vehicles and overall lack of servicable equipment has/had somehting to say. Why does everyone dismiss their words as "liberal biasness" when they have something to say? Shouldn't we support our troops?