Do you approve of George W. Bush's job performance?

[Friz]

Holy crap, it's now up to 7?!
What's wrong wit youse guys?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Holy crap, it's now up to 7?!
What's wrong wit youse guys?

8, my friend, 8 -- History won't look on him too bad, imo.  I think they will look at him as one of the better wartime presidents we've had.

[Jake]

Roberts wasn't really known how conservative - he turned out to be though.

Ridiculous. They certainly knew/thought he was deeply conservative.

Total wingnut. He could have nominated someone not 100% wingnut like Gonzales. Sure Gonzales is pro-torture, but's he's not completely crazy. Bush is saying  you to all but the hard-right.

He could have nominated Gonzales, a conservative, and gotten easy confirmation. We were willing to let Bush nominate a sem-wingnut. This guy is ing batsh**t crazy, and I will vote against Feinstein if she doesn't do all she can to block him.

Oh great, another nut on the Supreme Court.

How conservative is this guy?

Extremely.

Ive actually been out of the loop over the past couple days.  Three questions.

How conservative is this guy?
Is he fair?
Any controversial rulings?

He said roe v wade should be overturned.
He did a huge favor for Bush just a few days ago on the Guantanamo case.
Instead of pandering to his base bush should have shown some nerve and done the right thing.

District court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent. He wasn't saying he agreed with the ruling.

So basically it's MSNBC trying to make an extremist seem more moderate.

This entire diary at DailyKos.

[Friz]

Holy crap, it's now up to 7?!
What's wrong wit youse guys?

8, my friend, 8 -- History won't look on him too bad, imo.  I think they will look at him as one of the better wartime presidents we've had.

LOL!

[Gabu]

Holy crap, it's now up to 7?!
What's wrong wit youse guys?

8, my friend, 8 -- History won't look on him too bad, imo.  I think they will look at him as one of the better wartime presidents we've had.

Uh, who are the wartime presidents that are worse than him?  I can't think of... I was going to say "many", but instead I'll say "any".

What is there to approve of?  Remember we're talking job approval, not personal approval.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Holy crap, it's now up to 7?!
What's wrong wit youse guys?

8, my friend, 8 -- History won't look on him too bad, imo.  I think they will look at him as one of the better wartime presidents we've had.

Uh, who are the wartime presidents that are worse than him?  I can't think of... I was going to say "many", but instead I'll say "any".

What is there to approve of?  Remember we're talking job approval, not personal approval.

He handled 9/11 superbly, IMO, much better than Gore probably would have handled it.  He was right in taking out Saddam Hussein, who was a WMD himself and had the capability of connecting with Al-Qaeda, though there was no connection at the time.  He stopped a problem before a bigger problem arose.  I agree that by stopping a problem, he created another problem, because he didn't plan for a post-Saddam Iraq like he should have.  Going in was the right decision, but he didn't do enough of the homework before going in.  I think history will judge Bush's decision to go take out Saddam was a wise move, though he didn't plan for success so quickly and thus that success has been overshadowed by the chaos that has followed in the last 4 1/2 years.  He is not without his negatives, as he has been lackluster on immigration and been stubborn on Iraq, but he has, in my opinion, which is very valid, have more positives than negatives overall.

This is just my opinion, and you can have your opinion, and both are equally valid.

Other wartime presidents that I think were not as good as Bush were the Woodrow Wilson/Warren Harding administrations during World War I.  They didn't end the war like they were supposed to.  The war never stopped until September 1945 when Japan surrendered.  The Treaty of Versailles or the Armistice, as it was called, was, in effect, World War 1 1/2, because it riled Germany up even more and was part of the reason that propeled Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party into power in the early 1930s.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just a little side note, jamespol IMed me and he mentioned that he agrees about 93% of the time, so a "Dem" can agree w/ Bush.

[Gabu]

He handled 9/11 superbly, IMO, much better than Gore probably would have handled it.

What did he do, exactly, that Gore wouldn't have done?

He was right in taking out Saddam Hussein, who was a WMD himself and had the capability of connecting with Al-Qaeda, though there was no connection at the time.  He stopped a problem before a bigger problem arose.

But Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda weren't even close to being on speaking terms.  I'm fairly sure that Canada has the capability of connecting with al-Qaeda, too.

I think history will judge Bush's decision to go take out Saddam was a wise move, though he didn't plan for success so quickly and thus that success has been overshadowed by the chaos that has followed in the last 4 1/2 years.

Saddam Hussein was certainly a grade-A asshole, but there are an awful lot of those in the world.  That wasn't even the primary reason given for invading Iraq, anyway.  If you look up old speeches by Bush, he only mentions Saddam Hussein being a bad man way late in the game when it was becoming apparent that all of the other attempted justifications were false.

Other wartime presidents that I think were not as good as Bush were the Woodrow Wilson/Warren Harding administrations during World War I.  They didn't end the war like they were supposed to.  The war never stopped until September 1945 when Japan surrendered.  The Treaty of Versailles or the Armistice, as it was called, was, in effect, World War 1 1/2, because it riled Germany up even more and was part of the reason that propeled Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party into power in the early 1930s.

Okay, so you have one single president who was arguably worse than Bush in terms of foreign policy (I don't think nearly anyone considers Harding a wartime president...).  Given that I can think of at least six or seven presidents who were presidents during major military actions, I don't see how that shows that Bush is one of the better wartime presidents.

[Friz]

How on earth could one even suggest he's one of the better wartime presidents?  He lost!

[Joe Biden 2020]

He handled 9/11 superbly, IMO, much better than Gore probably would have handled it.

What did he do, exactly, that Gore wouldn't have done?

He was right in taking out Saddam Hussein, who was a WMD himself and had the capability of connecting with Al-Qaeda, though there was no connection at the time.  He stopped a problem before a bigger problem arose.

But Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda weren't even close to being on speaking terms.  I'm fairly sure that Canada has the capability of connecting with al-Qaeda, too.

I think history will judge Bush's decision to go take out Saddam was a wise move, though he didn't plan for success so quickly and thus that success has been overshadowed by the chaos that has followed in the last 4 1/2 years.

Saddam Hussein was certainly a grade-A asshole, but there are an awful lot of those in the world.  That wasn't even the primary reason given for invading Iraq, anyway.  If you look up old speeches by Bush, he only mentions Saddam Hussein being a bad man way late in the game when it was becoming apparent that all of the other attempted justifications were false.

Other wartime presidents that I think were not as good as Bush were the Woodrow Wilson/Warren Harding administrations during World War I.  They didn't end the war like they were supposed to.  The war never stopped until September 1945 when Japan surrendered.  The Treaty of Versailles or the Armistice, as it was called, was, in effect, World War 1 1/2, because it riled Germany up even more and was part of the reason that propeled Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party into power in the early 1930s.

Okay, so you have one single president who was arguably worse than Bush in terms of foreign policy (I don't think nearly anyone considers Harding a wartime president...).  Given that I can think of at least six or seven presidents who were presidents during major military actions, I don't see how that shows that Bush is one of the better wartime presidents.

How on earth could one even suggest he's one of the better wartime presidents?  He lost!

Iraq is not lost.  The surge is working.  The Anbar province, once one of the worst places in Iraq, is now one of the safest.  Iraq can still be won.  We're not where we need to be, but we're definitely farther along than we were in May, 2003 when "Mission Accomplished" was declared and not just in the calendar, either.  Anbar is just one of a number of examples.  Fallujah is not as bad as it was.  Baghdad is even slowly starting to calm down.  McCain is right, the surge is working.  Petraeus is going to bring back a positive report, saying that we're doing good, we just need to keep it up.  Heck, even Bush is talking about possibly drawing down the troops within the next year pending the September surge report.

I know I'm talking from the vast minority, but thats fine with me.  I like Bush.  He is NOT a bad president.  I actually think history will judge him to be one of our better presidents.  Definitely not the best, but not anywhere near the bottom.  Yes, my view of him has gotten drastically better in the past year where I thought he was one of the worst.  I still think Reagan was a better president in recent times, but Bush Jr was definitely better than his father or Nixon or Ford.

[Gabu]

Iraq is not lost.  The surge is working.  The Anbar province, once one of the worst places in Iraq, is now one of the safest.  Iraq can still be won.  We're not where we need to be, but we're definitely farther along than we were in May, 2003 when "Mission Accomplished" was declared and not just in the calendar, either.  Anbar is just one of a number of examples.  Fallujah is not as bad as it was.  Baghdad is even slowly starting to calm down.  McCain is right, the surge is working.  Petraeus is going to bring back a positive report, saying that we're doing good, we just need to keep it up.  Heck, even Bush is talking about possibly drawing down the troops within the next year pending the September surge report.

Okay... is that why, er, a report just came out saying that 11 of 18 benchmarks of success have not been achieved at all, and that an additional 4 have only partially been achieved?

Is 3 out of 18 (or 5 out of 18 if you count the 4 partially achieved benchmarks as a half) now considered success?

Oh yes, and this is coming from the GAO, not some liberal anti-war group.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Iraq is not lost.  The surge is working.  The Anbar province, once one of the worst places in Iraq, is now one of the safest.  Iraq can still be won.  We're not where we need to be, but we're definitely farther along than we were in May, 2003 when "Mission Accomplished" was declared and not just in the calendar, either.  Anbar is just one of a number of examples.  Fallujah is not as bad as it was.  Baghdad is even slowly starting to calm down.  McCain is right, the surge is working.  Petraeus is going to bring back a positive report, saying that we're doing good, we just need to keep it up.  Heck, even Bush is talking about possibly drawing down the troops within the next year pending the September surge report.

Okay... is that why, er, a report just came out saying that 11 of 18 benchmarks of success have not been achieved at all, and that an additional 4 have only partially been achieved?

Is 3 out of 18 (or 5 out of 18 if you count the 4 partially achieved benchmarks as a half) now considered success?

Oh yes, and this is coming from the GAO, not some liberal anti-war group.

Do you look at the glass 3/4 empty or 1/4 full?  When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.  In the same way, we should not be disheartened by what we have not achieved, but we should be joyed by what we have achieved, while still working to achieve the remaining 10-15 benchmarks.

This also tells me that now's not the time to bring everybody home.  We can't leave a project unfinished.  Mike Huckabee was correct last night when he said [paraphrased] "whether it was right or not to go in is immaterial.  What is the fact, we broke it, therefore we must fix it.  We don't fix something by leaving it dismantled and fleeing the face of disaster.  I, as much as anybody, want the troops home as soon as we can, but as John McCain said, I want them to come home from a position of strength, not a position of retreat.  As Fred Thompson also said, we want to leave because of strength, not caught running away with our tail between our legs.

I'm not disputing the report at all, as it is from a non-liberal group, but I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

[Ebowed]

When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.

Sounds like you'd think of an unexplained Oklahoma tsunami as a fortunate blessing!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.

Sounds like you'd think of an unexplained Oklahoma tsunami as a fortunate blessing!

What does that even mean?

[Gabu]

Do you look at the glass 3/4 empty or 1/4 full?  When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.  In the same way, we should not be disheartened by what we have not achieved, but we should be joyed by what we have achieved, while still working to achieve the remaining 10-15 benchmarks.

This also tells me that now's not the time to bring everybody home.  We can't leave a project unfinished.  Mike Huckabee was correct last night when he said [paraphrased] "whether it was right or not to go in is immaterial.  What is the fact, we broke it, therefore we must fix it.  We don't fix something by leaving it dismantled and fleeing the face of disaster.  I, as much as anybody, want the troops home as soon as we can, but as John McCain said, I want them to come home from a position of strength, not a position of retreat.  As Fred Thompson also said, we want to leave because of strength, not caught running away with our tail between our legs.

I'm not disputing the report at all, as it is from a non-liberal group, but I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

How much longer do they need?  The White House directly said that people should wait until September to see how things are going.  Now it's September and a report has directly said that things are not going well.  The three things that have successfully been done are ensuring the protection of minority parties, establishing committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan, and establishing joint security stations in Baghdad.  That's it.  Benchmarks not achieved includes such minor and trivial things as "reduce sectarian violence", "ensure evenhanded enforcement of the law", and "ensure Iraq's political authorities are not undermining Iraqi security forces".  The report said that violence has not decreased and that key legislation has not been passed.

In other words, the three benchmarks that have been met are minor at best, and the big stuff that would really make an impact has just not happened one bit, nor is there any indication that it will happen in the near future.  If you want to look at that as significant progress, that's some rather rosy glasses you've got on there.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Do you look at the glass 3/4 empty or 1/4 full?  When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.  In the same way, we should not be disheartened by what we have not achieved, but we should be joyed by what we have achieved, while still working to achieve the remaining 10-15 benchmarks.

This also tells me that now's not the time to bring everybody home.  We can't leave a project unfinished.  Mike Huckabee was correct last night when he said [paraphrased] "whether it was right or not to go in is immaterial.  What is the fact, we broke it, therefore we must fix it.  We don't fix something by leaving it dismantled and fleeing the face of disaster.  I, as much as anybody, want the troops home as soon as we can, but as John McCain said, I want them to come home from a position of strength, not a position of retreat.  As Fred Thompson also said, we want to leave because of strength, not caught running away with our tail between our legs.

I'm not disputing the report at all, as it is from a non-liberal group, but I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

How much longer do they need?  The White House directly said that people should wait until September to see how things are going.  Now it's September and a report has directly said that things are not going well.  The three things that have successfully been done are ensuring the protection of minority parties, establishing committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan, and establishing joint security stations in Baghdad.  That's it.  Benchmarks not achieved includes such minor and trivial things as "reduce sectarian violence", "ensure evenhanded enforcement of the law", and "ensure Iraq's political authorities are not undermining Iraqi security forces".  The report said that violence has not decreased and that key legislation has not been passed.

In other words, the three benchmarks that have been met are minor at best, and the big stuff that would really make an impact has just not happened one bit, nor is there any indication that it will happen in the near future.  If you want to look at that as significant progress, that's some rather rosy glasses you've got on there.

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

[Friz]

Do you look at the glass 3/4 empty or 1/4 full?  When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.  In the same way, we should not be disheartened by what we have not achieved, but we should be joyed by what we have achieved, while still working to achieve the remaining 10-15 benchmarks.

This also tells me that now's not the time to bring everybody home.  We can't leave a project unfinished.  Mike Huckabee was correct last night when he said [paraphrased] "whether it was right or not to go in is immaterial.  What is the fact, we broke it, therefore we must fix it.  We don't fix something by leaving it dismantled and fleeing the face of disaster.  I, as much as anybody, want the troops home as soon as we can, but as John McCain said, I want them to come home from a position of strength, not a position of retreat.  As Fred Thompson also said, we want to leave because of strength, not caught running away with our tail between our legs.

I'm not disputing the report at all, as it is from a non-liberal group, but I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

How much longer do they need?  The White House directly said that people should wait until September to see how things are going.  Now it's September and a report has directly said that things are not going well.  The three things that have successfully been done are ensuring the protection of minority parties, establishing committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan, and establishing joint security stations in Baghdad.  That's it.  Benchmarks not achieved includes such minor and trivial things as "reduce sectarian violence", "ensure evenhanded enforcement of the law", and "ensure Iraq's political authorities are not undermining Iraqi security forces".  The report said that violence has not decreased and that key legislation has not been passed.

In other words, the three benchmarks that have been met are minor at best, and the big stuff that would really make an impact has just not happened one bit, nor is there any indication that it will happen in the near future.  If you want to look at that as significant progress, that's some rather rosy glasses you've got on there.

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

Yep.

[Smash255]

No, as Bush is a complete an utter failure

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, as Bush is a complete an utter failure

[Smash255]

Do you look at the glass 3/4 empty or 1/4 full?  When I think of all the blessings that my God has given me, it serves me well not to dwell on what I don't have, but to praise Him for what I do have.  In the same way, we should not be disheartened by what we have not achieved, but we should be joyed by what we have achieved, while still working to achieve the remaining 10-15 benchmarks.

This also tells me that now's not the time to bring everybody home.  We can't leave a project unfinished.  Mike Huckabee was correct last night when he said [paraphrased] "whether it was right or not to go in is immaterial.  What is the fact, we broke it, therefore we must fix it.  We don't fix something by leaving it dismantled and fleeing the face of disaster.  I, as much as anybody, want the troops home as soon as we can, but as John McCain said, I want them to come home from a position of strength, not a position of retreat.  As Fred Thompson also said, we want to leave because of strength, not caught running away with our tail between our legs.

I'm not disputing the report at all, as it is from a non-liberal group, but I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

How much longer do they need?  The White House directly said that people should wait until September to see how things are going.  Now it's September and a report has directly said that things are not going well.  The three things that have successfully been done are ensuring the protection of minority parties, establishing committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan, and establishing joint security stations in Baghdad.  That's it.  Benchmarks not achieved includes such minor and trivial things as "reduce sectarian violence", "ensure evenhanded enforcement of the law", and "ensure Iraq's political authorities are not undermining Iraqi security forces".  The report said that violence has not decreased and that key legislation has not been passed.

In other words, the three benchmarks that have been met are minor at best, and the big stuff that would really make an impact has just not happened one bit, nor is there any indication that it will happen in the near future.  If you want to look at that as significant progress, that's some rather rosy glasses you've got on there.

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

Yes you are.  The reasons we went into the war is utter bs.  And since when is brutally failing the benchmarks for the surge, a horrific political situation and increasing violence a success?  due to the intense heat in Iraq, the summer has tended to be the least violent yet August had the 2nd highest civilian death toll.  ahh progress  umm what?

[Gabu]

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

Yes, you really are wrong for thinking that progress is being made.  The three benchmarks that were achieved were minor and not very difficult at all to do.  There is no evidence that the actually important stuff will get done anytime soon, nor is there really any evidence that it will ever get done.  Like I said, the report said that violence had not gone down and that key legislation had not been passed.  What's taking so long, and what will even more time do?  There has been no progress towards the important goals.  None.  They're not almost there; they haven't even begun to get there.  At what point can we simply say that it isn't going to happen?

To say that the job is 1/4 done and act as if that shows that progress will continue steadily until it's completely done is - and I'm sorry to be blunt - totally false.  The benchmarks are unrelated.  Completing some does not mean that the others are coming.

Suppose you come up to a brick wall.  You want to move this brick wall, so you begin hitting it with your head.  After a while you find that this is doing nothing and that you're starting to get a headache.  Which is the better option: stop attempting this, or "stay the course" because you'd obviously be a coward to stop hitting your head against a brick wall?

And like I said, the reasons for going into Iraq that were given were that Iraq was a threat and had WMD.  They didn't, and it has come out that Bush even knew that they didn't.  The whole "Saddam Hussein is bad" only came out when it was becoming evident that the other reasons given were false.

Do you also approve of the United States invading every other country in the world led by a despot?  If not, why is Iraq a special case?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

Yes, you really are wrong for thinking that progress is being made.  The three benchmarks that were achieved were minor and not very difficult at all to do.  There is no evidence that the actually important stuff will get done anytime soon, nor is there really any evidence that it will ever get done.  Like I said, the report said that violence had not gone down and that key legislation had not been passed.  What's taking so long, and what will even more time do?  There has been no progress towards the important goals.  None.  They're not almost there; they haven't even begun to get there.  At what point can we simply say that it isn't going to happen?

To say that the job is 1/4 done and act as if that shows that progress will continue steadily until it's completely done is - and I'm sorry to be blunt - totally false.  The benchmarks are unrelated.  Completing some does not mean that the others are coming.

Suppose you come up to a brick wall.  You want to move this brick wall, so you begin hitting it with your head.  After a while you find that this is doing nothing and that you're starting to get a headache.  Which is the better option: stop attempting this, or "stay the course" because you'd obviously be a coward to stop hitting your head against a brick wall?

And like I said, the reasons for going into Iraq that were given were that Iraq was a threat and had WMD.  They didn't, and it has come out that Bush even knew that they didn't.  The whole "Saddam Hussein is bad" only came out when it was becoming evident that the other reasons given were false.

Do you also approve of the United States invading every other country in the world led by a despot?  If not, why is Iraq a special case?

Okay, so maybe we're not making significant progress.  Its not looking very good, but the picture isn't extremely bleak, either.  Petraeus said today that he wants the surge into the spring.  This tells me that either the surge is working, but just need more time with it, or its not working and they want to give it longer to produce results.  Whatever the reason, I do rescind and say Iraq isn't going as well as we would like.  Heck, even Bush admits that.

But, am I wrong for liking George W. Bush as a person AND as a President?  Last time I checked, one could like or not like whom they chose.  This is America and a free country, so I thought I was given a free mind to like George W. Bush as a President and not have my opinion shot down and laughed at like I'm living in a dream world.

Do I think Bush is the best president we've ever had?  Absolutely not.  I do think, though, that he is not among the worst.  I think he's somewhere in the middle, maybe slightly better than the middle.

Heck, if you think about it, America has really had no extremely bad Presidents.  Each had their own strengths and weaknesses.  They were each good in their strengths, and poor in their weaknesses.  There are some administrations that were not as cohesive or good as others, but there have not been any extremely horrible Presidents.  Despite what some may say, you do have to be an intelligent man or woman to be the President of the United States of America, and that goes for any other sovereign nation, as well.  Even George Walker Bush is an intelligent man, and he has used that intelligence in his governing of this great nation.  He went into Iraq, because he thought it would be the best thing for America, and for that I give him credit.  His handling of the war has not been the best, but I give him credit for taking out what he saw, and the majority of the free world saw, as a growing threat to their nation's security.

Still, as much as I like President Bush as a President, I am very much looking forward and eagerly anticipating the 44th Presidential Administration and support John Edwards, one of the biggest Bush critics, for that job.  Of the 8 first tier candidates (this includes Bill Richardson and Fred Thompson), we have 7 respectful men and 1 respectful woman running.  As I think about it more and more and pray about it more and more, the more I would be comfortable with ANY of them taking office.  I'm starting to like the Republican field and most of the Democratic field.  I support Senator Edwards, but I would be satisfied with any of them, to be quite honest.

[Smash255]

Am I wrong for approving of the Bush Administration?  Am I wrong for approving of the reasons for going into Iraq?  Am I wrong for thinking we are making progress, when it is clear that WE ARE?

Yes, you really are wrong for thinking that progress is being made.  The three benchmarks that were achieved were minor and not very difficult at all to do.  There is no evidence that the actually important stuff will get done anytime soon, nor is there really any evidence that it will ever get done.  Like I said, the report said that violence had not gone down and that key legislation had not been passed.  What's taking so long, and what will even more time do?  There has been no progress towards the important goals.  None.  They're not almost there; they haven't even begun to get there.  At what point can we simply say that it isn't going to happen?

To say that the job is 1/4 done and act as if that shows that progress will continue steadily until it's completely done is - and I'm sorry to be blunt - totally false.  The benchmarks are unrelated.  Completing some does not mean that the others are coming.

Suppose you come up to a brick wall.  You want to move this brick wall, so you begin hitting it with your head.  After a while you find that this is doing nothing and that you're starting to get a headache.  Which is the better option: stop attempting this, or "stay the course" because you'd obviously be a coward to stop hitting your head against a brick wall?

And like I said, the reasons for going into Iraq that were given were that Iraq was a threat and had WMD.  They didn't, and it has come out that Bush even knew that they didn't.  The whole "Saddam Hussein is bad" only came out when it was becoming evident that the other reasons given were false.

Do you also approve of the United States invading every other country in the world led by a despot?  If not, why is Iraq a special case?

Okay, so maybe we're not making significant progress.  Its not looking very good, but the picture isn't extremely bleak, either.  Petraeus said today that he wants the surge into the spring.  This tells me that either the surge is working, but just need more time with it, or its not working and they want to give it longer to produce results.  Whatever the reason, I do rescind and say Iraq isn't going as well as we would like.  Heck, even Bush admits that.

But, am I wrong for liking George W. Bush as a person AND as a President?  Last time I checked, one could like or not like whom they chose.  This is America and a free country, so I thought I was given a free mind to like George W. Bush as a President and not have my opinion shot down and laughed at like I'm living in a dream world.

Do I think Bush is the best president we've ever had?  Absolutely not.  I do think, though, that he is not among the worst.  I think he's somewhere in the middle, maybe slightly better than the middle.

Heck, if you think about it, America has really had no extremely bad Presidents.  Each had their own strengths and weaknesses.  They were each good in their strengths, and poor in their weaknesses.  There are some administrations that were not as cohesive or good as others, but there have not been any extremely horrible Presidents.  Despite what some may say, you do have to be an intelligent man or woman to be the President of the United States of America, and that goes for any other sovereign nation, as well.  Even George Walker Bush is an intelligent man, and he has used that intelligence in his governing of this great nation.  He went into Iraq, because he thought it would be the best thing for America, and for that I give him credit.  His handling of the war has not been the best, but I give him credit for taking out what he saw, and the majority of the free world saw, as a growing threat to their nation's security.

Still, as much as I like President Bush as a President, I am very much looking forward and eagerly anticipating the 44th Presidential Administration and support John Edwards, one of the biggest Bush critics, for that job.  Of the 8 first tier candidates (this includes Bill Richardson and Fred Thompson), we have 7 respectful men and 1 respectful woman running.  As I think about it more and more and pray about it more and more, the more I would be comfortable with ANY of them taking office.  I'm starting to like the Republican field and most of the Democratic field.  I support Senator Edwards, but I would be satisfied with any of them, to be quite honest.

Thats a bunch of crap.  Bush didn't go into Iraq because he thought it was the best thing for America.  he wanted to go into Iraq period and didn't give a damn about the consequences of his actions.  Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S, their is no evidence to suggest he was.  We know Bush was made aware that the evidence of the WMD"s in Iraq wasn't nearly as strong as it was when we went into Iraq.  Now if you want to make the argument he didn't know Iraq didn't have weapons go ahead, but it was made clear to him that their was conflicting evidence at the least on the case and he refused to share that with Congress or the American people for the sole reason that he wanted war.  This wasn't a decision based on how it impacted our security, it was something done as a last resort, it was done because Bush, Cheney and company decided they wanted war.

[Friz]

It's sad people with such pliable minds are allowed to vote.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It's sad people with such pliable minds are allowed to vote.

Well said!