Replace the word “Demotrats” with “Republican”, the word “liberal” with “conservative” and alter the dates and it still applies.

And how do you come to that conclusion? polls have also reflected that the majority of people are worried tha tyhe Dem majority will do too much to hamstring Bush from winning in Iraq.

As I said- polls mean nothing. They are invcariably slanted and the questions are loaded.

“Bush and his pathetic Iraq War might possibly have damaged the Republican Party for years to come.”

Perhaps, but right now Guiliani is the front runner. They key to this now is exactly how drunk with power will the Dems be? All indications are pointing that they will be just as bad as the Reps were the last 10 years.

“We shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq. Period. And the people who cheerfuly led us into this mess won’t get off the hook too easily in the coming years.”

I disagree. FAO makes a good arguement. If folks continue to whistle past the grave yard, then it will be our detriment.

We have been actively investigating and prosecuting our soldiers and marines over every little mishap that results in unexpected collateral damage and it has been costing us lives as they flinch before taking a shot that might be questionable.

We are constantly being told that there are no WMDs in Iraq. While we haven’t found what we expected to find, the statement that there are no WMDs there is like saying that because we haven’t found all of the meth labs in California there aren’t any. Yes that is an accurate example as Iraq is approximately the size of California and it only takes a lab about the size of a walk in closet to produce certain chemical weapons. When people say we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq because Saddam wasn’t a threat, I just ask if they would stop someone from handing a loaded gun to a child. The analogy is correct as well. It doesn’t matter how many chemical weapons Saddam had stockpiled as much as the fact that as soon as he had enough to make him happy, he’d have started handing them off to his terrorist surrogates to attack Israel, and the US with. He was actively supporting terrorists with money. How long would it have been before he started handing them chemical weapons? As far as I’m concerned, we really could ill afford to take the chance. Do you honestly believe that Israel wouldn’t have responded to a chemical attack with a nuclear one? THAT would’ve really destabilized the middle east.

This is a new type of warfare and we can not simply run from the fight. Like any back alley fight, if you try to run, the thugs simply run after you until they catch you. There are only two ways to end a street fight: Win or Lose. The only way that we lose is if we lose our resolve (something that the Dems have been doing their damndest to insure) and quit before the fight is over. No boxer ever won a 12 round match by throwing in the towel in the 11th round.

(!)

Bush and his pathetic Iraq War might possibly have damaged the Republican Party for years to come.

We shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq. Period. And the people who cheerfuly led us into this mess won’t get off the hook too easily in the coming years.

LOL- Yep, that’s me. Politically correct!

It is politically intrinsic that the Dems want Iraq to fail. I doubt if they want to destroy America though BonBon, so I don’t see it as selfish or narcisistic. They want a healthy America- the more money we make, the more money they make (no matter if from a taxcation standpoint or from a coporate suckling standpoint). This is how they share the power with the Republicans.

Using a more “common man” approach, even though I don’t agree with them I think it is more so a difference in philophy. They also follow lockstep with thier party, just like faithful Republicans.

Regarinfg the candidates- Guiliani has given me a desire to vote again. It may be the old Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry gambit again though- I don’t know.

I have to give it deep thought.

I agree with you that neither party has gotten far in this. I will give Bush some leeway though in that this problem was occurring on the dems watch and they did nothing. Bush has been playing catchup with people who want no part of it; only to destroy him. They may very well end up destroying America as well. This is a selfish, narcisistic, dangerous presumption.

I’m in it for the long haul but I would make a prediction that in order to get it under control it will be a republican and not a democrat. At this point in time I can’t see the muslim Obama or Hillary giving serious thought to it. I can see McCain, Giuliani, or even Thompson taking this war seriously.

My opinion?

Americans wasnt an Iraq policy that will mean a victory. Neither Bush or the Dems have supplied it yet, so America is getting weary of the situation. In five years, there have been little ot no substantiated or lasting improvements to the situation once we ended the invasion and began the occupation. That’s all we want- a marked improvement

When we began the GWOT, I knew we would be in it for at least a generation to come. It takes a firm place as the next historical war, after the Cold War. I don’t mind that at all, but I want no more of this half hearted effort. It took the vision of Ronald Reagan to end the Cold War. I am wondering- who will be the “Ronald Reagan” of the GWOT? Who will have that kind of vision?

7, AKD, you are also blind. Even ABC radio news is saying the Surge appears to be working. They say appears because if they were honest, they are partisan Democrats who want to see bodybags, bodybags, and more bodybags.

You libs are psychotically selfdestructive.

The same people who screeched for “free speech” for years, and more recently, “diversity” are some of the most repressive fascists on the planet.