It's not a competition, but I think you've got enough to worry about with your own guy.
Well, John, despite three major economic dislocations - an inherited recession, 9/11, and Katrina - economic growth has ranged between steady and prodigious over the past six and a half years, with many millions of jobs created, federal revenues at record levels, unemployment steady at less than 4.5 percent, the stock market at a record high, the deficit getting lower and the budget nearer to being balanced again. If W were a democrat the media over here would be hailing him as the second coming of FDR. As for Iraq, as someone familian with Indict before the invasion, I tend to be in agreement with the likes of Sen. Lieberman. I think these are the bad guys. But we approach these things from different positions on the political spectrum. Actually, my position there is highly mobile.
"If W were a democrat the media over here would be hailing him as the second coming of FDR. "I doubt that. Abu Graib - on W's watch. The end of Habeas Corpus - on W's watch. Pre-emptive war - on W's watch. Thousands of soldiers dead for a LIE. "Be afraid America, there's WMDs in Iraq!" - on W's watch.Complete disregard of his oath of office, incompetence at war, incompetence at disaster relief, incompetence at budget balancing, incompetence at ... well, the list is pretty long. No matter what the political affiliation, democrat or republican or members of the Fuel and Freedom Party, people will be seeing W as the worst President this country ever had for a long, long time. -blue
The end of habeas corpus, Blue? Trust me, it still applies if you or any other citizen is charged with a crime. Lincoln suspended it entirely during the Civil War. I see no reason why it should apply to foreign combatants, nor do I see that those who are not U.S. citizens should have the rights of U.S. citizens extended to them. Regarding WMDs,how about this quote, from Feb 6, 2003: "There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that." That was Joseph Wilson, who also said this on Feb. 28, 2003,in an interview with Bill Moyers: BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true."I would like to to see one quote from a reputable source prior to the Iraq invasion who categorically denied that Iraq possessed WMDs.
"Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs." -Brent Scowcroft - 2002If he already had 'em, why was he seeking 'em? No, it was not a categorical denial. But it was an admission, from someone who ain't no democratic party hack, that Saddam didn't have WMDs. In that same speech Scowcroft predicted everything that has come to pass, you know? Why weren't his warnings heeded? Arrogance and incompetence - what a pair to draw to ...Worst President in USA history - George W. Bush. -blueNO man should rot in jail without trial. NO man should be tortured - American or not.
Nobody said anybody should rot in jail without a trial. But a military tribunal is suitable for enemy combatants. I don't support torture, either. And I trust the AQ torture rooms that have been found recently bother you at least as much as Abu Ghraib, which seemed to me more on the level of college hazing. And I think you put too much weight on a single word in a Scowcroft speech (odd how he became a favorite of the left). You can after all seek to have more of what you already have - and you can hardly deny that the Kurds and Iranians were victims of Iraqi WMDs. That's fact, not opinion. BTW, Tony Blair wanted Clinton to topple Saddam.