Ashamed of how I voted

[telewinz]

We will never KNOW what Kerry MAY have done anymore than we now know what the President of 2012 MAY do.  I'm judging Bush by what he HAS done.  Performance is what counts, additionally the 2nd amendment is not a suicide pact in which it's one issue supporters (lemmings?) jump off the cliff in a patriotic huff.

[jefnvk]

Unfortunately, I livie in a time in which I have to pick between two parties that are both trying to stomp out my rights, and have to pick the party that will support the rights that are most important to me.

As for speaking, I can't talk worth a damn.  If you ever talk to me, the first thing you'll probably notice is how I trip over words and come up with blanks when looking for some description word.  That doesn't keep me from acceling in just about everything that I do, though.

I know plenty of folks who can talk all day long excellently, but couldn't come up with one good thought during that entire time.

[telewinz]

George doesn't have a speech impediment, he's just a confused poor leader that even our remaining friends consider to be a liability instead of an asset.  Maybe the next time he calls his "friends" (the Saudis) to increase their production and lower prices, he shouldn't call collect!  Maybe he should stay-up past nine PM and catch the 11 O'clock news.  BTW it isn't the democrats sinking George's social security "fix", its the vast majority of the voting public (myself included) and quite a few republican congressmen.  A "lame duck" President this early in his second term.  George can't talk in public (can't think on his feet?), can't ride a bicycle in convoy, and can't govern even with a majority in Congress.  Despite all this how can anyone say George isn't a good leader?  He takes a great picture in a flight suit though.  I once saw a picture of Calvin Coolidge in a warbonnet, he looked cool and he was a great leader like George too!

[Waitone]

I've never seen a president who has p*ssed off so many and varied people.  I guess that means he is doing something right {talks into his sleeve}  Don't know what it is, but something must be right.  Maybe he's decided he will never get credit for doing anything right so he simply does what he wants.

BTW, George Clooney is a pretty good speaker.  Does that means he has high intelligence?

[Warbow]

We will never KNOW what Kerry MAY have done anymore than we now know what the President of 2012 MAY do.  I'm judging Bush by what he HAS done.  Performance is what counts, additionally the 2nd amendment is not a suicide pact in which it's one issue supporters (lemmings?) jump off the cliff in a patriotic huff.

LOL.

Yeah, I'm sure Kerry would have done a 180 from his entire past political career as soon as he was elected POTUS. He would have been awesome -- we should have voted for him. Give me a break.

It's not like I wouldn't rather have a constitutionalist as POTUS, but damn, telewinz, you sound like a whiney little baby with your ridiculous criticisms of GWB. "Waaah, he crashed his bike and his words don't flow, waaah."

It also looks like "lame duck" is the new chic phrase to bandy about when you want to look like you have something to say but you actually don't -- sort of like "exit strategy" some months ago.

[telewinz]

WARBOW:

Very Convincing, have you been published yet?

The accomplishments of Jimmy Carter, a ONE term President with a 59% DISapproval rating.  Maybe George has just set his sites TOO high.

The Camp David Accords in 1978 may possibly rank as one of the greatest mediation achievements in history. The accords would lead to a peace treaty in 1979, formally ending the 31-year war between Israel and Egypt. After Carter's defeat, it would take the United States another 10 years to pick up where the Carter Administration left off.

 The U.S. formally recognized Peking as the legitimate government in China, and Deputy Premier Teng Hsiao-ping became the first Chinese Communist leader to visit the U.S.

Carter also took the lead in condemning the Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. Carter built a global coalition in protesting the 1979 invasion. In 1980, the U.S. suspended all high-technology and grain sales to the Soviet Union.

Carter not only denounced the trials of Soviet dissidents, but also spoke out for the rights of Eastern Europeans. The Carter administration was also a progenitor of condemnation of the racism in South Africa, as well as a critic of the violent regimes of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Idi Amin in Uganda.

The Carter Administration signed the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union in 1979, only to have the treaty later defeated by Senate conservatives.

only Carter could break the ice with the North Koreans. Much has been made of President Kim Il Sung's political savvy, especially in dealing with Joseph Stalin. Carter must have been up to the task. The North Koreans have agreed to freeze all of their nuclear exploits while negotiating with the U.S., something even Carter's Democratic brethren thought impossible.

Other presidents had a significant part of the White House devoted essentially to public relations, and Carter found that totally unacceptable. At the same time, after he lost there was a very conscious effort by the people around Ronald Reagan to denigrate Carter's accomplishments."

Mr. Carter is the author of sixteen books, many of which are now in revised editions.  In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.

The Panama Canal treaties and On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978.

[Ron]

Your defense of President Carter is all anyone needs to know when assessing your opinions.

[telewinz]

Facts are Facts, if Bush in 5 years (with a Republican Congress no less) doesn't compare well with Carter (4 years) what does that say for your judgement?  Maybe I'm confusing you?  Some people don't handle facts well.

[Warbow]

I only try to be as convincing as the person I'm responding to.

Nice copy and paste about Carter. Care to source it?

[Typhoon]

Here we go:

The Camp David Accords came about, not as a result of the wonderful mediation efforts of the Carter Administration, but as a response by Anwar Sadat to the Carter Administrations call for an all-party peace process in Geneva.  This process would, by definition, include the Soviets. President Sadat had just spent considerable effort booting the Soviets out of Egypt.  He clearly understood that the Soviets had no business in the Middle East and wasnt about to give them a foothold in this instance.  

On his own initiative, Sadat approached Menachem Begin with a request to visit Jerusalem and commence negotiations directly with Israel.  This was at considerable risk, as it was not that long after the Arab League instated the Three Nos of Khartoum agreement after the 1967 war (which Nasser, not he, had started with Israel).  Khartoum said with respect to Israel, No peace, no recognition, and no negotiation.  President Sadat went to Jerusalem anyway (the Jerusalem choice was particularly important, because it tacitly recognized Israels interest in that city) and directly addressed the Knesset.  History does not seem to reward the considerable courage of President Sadat.  President Carter was more of a bystander (even if he did perversely instigate it).  History IS reflecting President Carters antagonism toward Israel and his sickening deference to the professional terrorist, Yassir Arafat.  

Next, SALT II.  When the Carter Administration inherited the original SALT II provisions from the Ford Administration and Henry Kissinger, the treaty, as it stood, was acceptable to the United States.  Unfortunately, the Carter Administration, desperate for an arms control treaty with the Soviets, weakened it with concession after concession.  By the time of signing, it was so asymmetrically biased in favor of the Soviets that the Senate could not in good conscience ratify it.  I wonder why you might bring SALT II up, because the Cold War was won by the United States quite nicely without it.  President Carter was not part of that process, and in fact, did what he could to derail the process.  

Side note:  As an ex-president, Jimmy Carter has done more to undermine his successor administrations than any other in history.  He publicly criticizes United States positions, often to the detriment of the country he swore to defend.

Next, China.  It was President Nixon who took the first bold step and visited the Peoples Republic.  Recognition was more of a fait accompli at that point.  One simply cannot ignore one quarter of the worlds population (as it was at that time, and still might be  havent checked recently).  Beijing went nuclear shortly before the Nixon Administration as well.  It was only a matter of time.  

Next, Afghanistan.  Carter also took the lead in condemning the Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. Carter built a global coalition in protesting the 1979 invasion. In 1980, the U.S. suspended all high-technology and grain sales to the Soviet Union.  So what?  It is very easy to condemn; it is quite something else to do something about it.  Indeed, a strong argument can be made that it was because of the Carter Administrations weak position with respect to Iran, and its virtual abandonment of the Shah, the Soviets were bold enough to invade Afghanistan.  What was the United States going to do?  Condemn strongly?  Iran had, until quite recently, been a vital partner with the United States.  That support ended with Jimmy Carter.  Indeed, Carter, with his skewed attitude toward totalitarian governments, actually believed that Khomeini might do well by the Iranian citizens.  He believed that Khomeini was a progressive cleric.  Well, we saw how well that worked out.

I would take the argument even further to say that Islamic fundamentalism was encouraged to take strong root in the Middle East because of the Carter Administrations failed foreign policy.  

Next, Human Rights.  Again, it is all well and good to speak out about human rights abuses.  It is quite another thing to do something about them.  The Berlin Wall did not fall because of Jimmy Carter.  It fell because of the relentless pressure placed on Communism by the United States, Pope John Paul II, the forces behind the creation of the European Union, and others.  Sometimes, evil must be met with military might, or the threat of it.  This is something Carter appears loathe to embrace, and in fact boasted that he never sent soldiers into combat.  Finish the thought for yourself.  

Re: dissidents.  Actually, there is evidence that President Reagans condemnation of the Soviet Union as an evil empire did more to bolster the spirits of the persecuted than anything President Carter did.  

I will give Jimmy Carter credit for his campaigns against human suffering, and his good works for the disadvantaged.  But these activities are best done by private citizens.  The business of statecraft is another matter.

Next, North Korea.  Even President Clinton was pissed off by what Jimmy Carter did in North Korea.  Again, appeasing an overtly aggressive country is a mistake.  

The rest?  The Panama Canal treaties and On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978.

Feel-good legislation that did essentially nothing to better the state of U.S. citizens, and often at great cost.  

Ive had enough&

[telewinz]

Typhoon

Who gets the REAL credit for Carter's Nobel Prize Peace Award?  The camels?  I'm not a fan of Carter but Bush doesn't even compete well with him (or any other President) concerning accomplishments (and public speaking and bicycle riding).  In our society the mentally challenged often cannot compete well except in restricted events such as the Special Olympics.  I'm still waiting for a list of Bush's accomplishments.

Source of Carter's accomplishments...just do a web search of "President Carter's Accomplishments".  Try a web search for Bush... if you need the help in listing his accomplishments(?).
 
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

[RevDisk]

Bush's speech issue is called "sporadic aphasia".   I could venture a guess at the cause, but I'm not a doctor.  So I'll keep my opinion to myself.   Besides, I'd likely be accused of being a Leftist or whatnot.  (BWAHAHA)

I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of two evils win.

Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.

Someone once meantioned to me an interesting phrase.  "Complaining about politicians is like complaining after playing a game of poker against someone with a marked deck, and they knew it was marked before they played."  

Democrat/Republican elections are a rigged game.  Either way you vote, the same thing will happen.  Taxes will go up.  (With a few very minor tax cuts to show the flag.)  Liberties will disappear.  (In the name of peace or security.)  The status quo will be maintained at all costs.  I'm not a Libertarian, nor do I think too much of the current LP.  I'm just calling the system for what it is.

I would take the argument even further to say that Islamic fundamentalism was encouraged to take strong root in the Middle East because of the Carter Administrations failed foreign policy.

Typhoon, Carter tried to launch a military operation against Iran.  The military (and bad luck) let him down.  Hence the creation of SOCOM and the vast improvement of the Special Operations community.  How many military operations did Reagan launch against Iran?   Oh yea, he invaded Grenada instead.  Because obviously Grenada was more of a threat than Iran.    Instead, Reagan ARMED Iran.  Iran-Contra ring a bell?

Pardon me for being misguided, but I think a military raid sends a better message than giving weapons to the bad guys.

Yea, Carter's raid failed.  He took the blame.  He didn't pass the buck.  The military failed him, but he took as much of the blame as he could.  While I disliked Carter's politics, he was a good man.   Read any book about Desert One, particularly any book written by a vet of Desert One, and see what the guys on the ground said about Carter.

I think the time for talk is over as far as the Islamo-fascists are concerned.  They use the freedom we have, that they would destroy, to mock us and promote their terror in order to bring us down.  All I heard today was politicians and "news" media be polite and be politically correct, wringing their hands and talking.  Windbags and girly men (Sorry Barbara)  Hell, I never even heard the word Islamo-fascist, or Wahabbist.  NBC was still saying the "didn't know who did this" after the murderous slime announced hours before not only that they did it, but that they actually told the world they were going to a couple weeks ago, and Italy and Denmark (iirc) were next, for God's sake.  (Remember May 23 in London when the cowardly bastards chanted Kill Bush, Kill Blair, Death to America, Death to Britain, Nuke the Pentagon and the Brit Bobbies stood around and watched)
I have a suggestion for the "leadership" of the West.  Announce tomorrow that as far as the Islamo-fascist Wahabbi sect, we intend to scourge them with their own whip; Islamic Law applied in the fashion they apply it.  That means no free speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom to come and go, no nothing except the freedom for us to kill them.
I'm sorry if I sound bloodthirsty, but war is a dirty business that is engaged in to destoy your opponent; unequivicaly.  The Japanese fascists were fanatics as well.  We firebombed Tokyo and nuked them twice and they surrendered and de-deified the Emporer to boot.  I am not suggesting nukes, but we should pick a few key places throughout the Islamo-fascist neighborhood and level them and continue to level them till they quit!  If Islamo-fascist terrorists have no borders, then we should give them their wish, no borders.  Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia: Give em up or we'll wreck where they are.  In the end its us or them and there will always be the unfortunates in the middle.

While I disagree on your suggested strategy for dealing with the Wahabbis, I'm glad someone else here knows what they are.  Sometimes I feel like virtually no one else in the world knows who our enemy actually is.  It is not Islam, nor Arabs, but instead a relatively small sect called Wahabbism.   They're a bunch of ultraconservative wackos that need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

I do not think intentially murdering innocent civilians would be helpful in wiping the Wahabbis off the face of the earth.   Besides being wrong, I honestly don't think it'd be an effective tactic.   Also, not all those countries you meantioned sponsor Wahabbism or even like the Wahabbis.   Saddam, for all his faults, killed more than a few Wahabbis and was very much known for disliking religious wackos.   (Yes, he is a bad man.  But I don't fault him for disliking and distrusting the Wahabbis, who wanted to kill him.)  

War is not "one size fits all".   Our strategy against Japan during WWII worked because the leaders higher up the food chain were sane, and actually cared about their people.  They had a homeland, and a strong sense of nationalism.   They were very much hierarchical society, and thus followed orders (for the most part) when the surrender orders came down.  The Wahabbis have no such hierarchy, nor any specific nation, nor do they care much about the people in the countries they work in.   They believe in an ideology, one not tied to borders or any specific homeland.   Trying to use nationalist war doctrine against an enemy that cares very little for nationalism wouldn't work rather efficiently.


Then again, I think most people will ignore me because they have a set of opinions they do not wish to change to better fit reality.   I think a lack of adaptivity is one of the problems of our "War on Terrorism".  It's not currently a war to defeat the Wahabbis.  I'm not exactly sure what it truly is, but I think it's moreso aimed against the American citizenry than our foreign enemies.

[Ron]

I am no fan of the Mayor of London but his speech after the bombimgs was great.  As far as our enemies and their objective here is what he said

This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isnt an ideology, it isnt even a perverted faith, its just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide

The "terrorists" will kill anyone in their attempt to divide and weaken the west.

[grampster]

Rev,
In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific.   Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know.  Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border.  Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it.  It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message.  Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech.  Why?   Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech.  Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy?  Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom.  Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it.  So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures?  They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong.  Why can't we just all get along."  (Where is Rodney when we need him.)
As for borders, most States that are Muslim are as much in fear of these Wahabbists and only keep their silence because of that fear.  I believe there would not be much uproar (except from the Left in America) if we began to exterminate these horrible people methodically wherever we find them.  I believe we are doing that to some extent, right now.  I just think we need to be more aggressive than we have been.
Regarding innocents:  I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed.  Reality is just that, reality.  Survival in war involves everyone.  There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.

[Typhoon]

Re: Carter and the Nobel Peace Prize.

When announcing Carters prize to the media, Gunnar Berge, the chairman of the Nobel Prize committee, said that, It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (meaning G. W. Bush) administration has taken&. on the war on terrorism.  It is a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.  

Nice.  

Re: The mission to free the hostages in Iran.

A bold move.  I am sorry it didnt work.  I have not examined the after-effects of the mission and what lessons were learned.  I will certainly do so, and thanks for the resource.

Discussion:

United States policy with respect to the Middle East is fraught with blunders and miscalculations.  Iran has been particularly troublesome.  I question the original wisdom of returning the Shah to power in the first place, back in 1953.  But, once done, it was not a good idea to abandon him, as we did.  Additionally, as a result of the disempowerment of the CIA, we didnt have the intelligence to be able to take Khomeini as a credible threat.  Interesting that French and Israeli Intelligence had a better read on the situation than we did.    

Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder.  At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East.  We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.

Iran-Contra?  Playing both sides against the middle.  Also a bad move.

I am not trying to bash Carter here, but I do want to take a hard critical look at the various policies that brought us to this precarious situation.  

The Middle East is a hotbed of discontent.  One of the reasons (and a big one) is all the meddling the powers and superpowers have done over there.  Oil?  Yep.  Israel and the Palestinians?  Yep.  (I do believe that the United States should support the ONLY legitimate democracy in the Middle East).  Islamic radical fundamentalism?  Yep.  And on and on and on&

The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here.  It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.  

Or, do you disagree?

Re: Bushs achievements.

Ill pontificate once he finishes his Administration.

[telewinz]

Re: Bushs achievements.

Ill pontificate once he finishes his Administration.

1.  He kept the fight away from home so effectively that he created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the Patriot Act.

2.  He lead the fight to change Social Security, Bush's "plan" failed to be voted upon even in a Congress controlled by his own party.

3.  He forced the Iraqi's to hide their WMD so well that NOBODY could find them!

4.  He cut the budget for the VA during wartime in order to cut the deficit.

5.  He cut taxes in order to increase the deficit.

6.  He supported additional domestic oil exploration.

7.  He spoke to his oil domestic and foreign"friends" to increase production and lower oil prices.

8.  Oil prices were at an historic high under Bush's "leadership".

9.  Gasoline prices were at an historic high under Bush's "leadership"

10. Bush's approval rating was at an all time low for second term Presidents since records were kept.

11. Bush announces while donning a flight suit "mission accomplished" in Iraq.  Over 1000 servicemen have been killed since that "timely" announcement.

12.  YOU fill in the "accomplishment", its only the first day of the week.  Use extra space if needed.

[Typhoon]

Hey, The Patriot act has some serious problems, and I am not going to post on a public, polite forum what I think of the TSA.  

Oil exploration?  Good. Lets do it and lots more.  This is coming from a California native whose gas prices are considerably more than yours, and, while I dont exactly care for oil drilling platforms off the coast, Id rather have the opportunity to be able to DRIVE to the beach to see them.  And then not like them&

Alaska?  Been there.  I still have not heard a cogent argument against careful petroleum exploration.  Enlighten me, please, but do not exhort me to do a Google search or consult Wikipedia.  In fact, I would not be offended if you completely dismissed anything I said, as I am just pontificating.  

Whats wrong with rethinking Social Security?  I just got my annual statement, and it is clear that I cannot rely on it to sustain me without a serious retirement plan&

Look to 2008 if you want to change the course.  In the meantime, do what you can to influence your currently elected representatives.  Or, campaign to remove them.

Ill let President Bush finish his term before I pontificate&

[telewinz]

Being considered a lame duck President before the 1st year of your second term is completed could be considered an accomplishment I guess.  I want a leader regardless of party loyalty not a part-time thinker.

[RevDisk]

Rev,
In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific.   Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know.  Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border.  Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it.  It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message.  Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech.  Why?   Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech.  Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy?  Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom.  Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it.  So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures?  They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong.  Why can't we just all get along."  (Where is Rodney when we need him.)

Syria is not as much of a terrorism sponsor as the Bush administration has tried to make them seem.  They're hardly innocents, but rather, we have bigger fish to fry.   Iran, yea.  They're pretty much the the generic terrorist training country.  They've held numerous 'conferences' for terrorist leaders to pool resources, sanctioned training camps, etc.  In my humble opinion, however, invasion or bombing is currently the LAST thing we wanna do.  (Note, I said currently, things change.)   We want to foster an internal revolution amoung the Iranians themselves.  

The foot soldiers of the Wahabbis tend to be poor and have no education.  Obviously, they are easily swayed.  Why not sway their potentials (people not yet radicalized) in directions more favorable to our interests?  Instead of bombing innocent civilians, try to turn them against the Iranian government, and encourage them to start a revolution.   Cheap (relatively speaking), efficient, and clean.  

Banning free speech would accomplish little more than simply making their speech more widely read or heard.  Look up alcohol usage before Prohibition and then during.   Or heck, our War on Drugs.   Banning something usually just has the unintended consequences of making it more popular.   I might be wrong, but from what I've seen from previous banning attempts...  

As for borders, most States that are Muslim are as much in fear of these Wahabbists and only keep their silence because of that fear.  I believe there would not be much uproar (except from the Left in America) if we began to exterminate these horrible people methodically wherever we find them.  I believe we are doing that to some extent, right now.  I just think we need to be more aggressive than we have been.
Regarding innocents:  I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed.  Reality is just that, reality.  Survival in war involves everyone.  There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.

Look up how many Muslims the Wahabbis have killed.  Heck, look up how many Muslim leaders the Muslim Brotherhood has killed in Egypt alone.   I'd say a good amount of that fear is justified.  Yea, we need to deal with the Wahabbis.  Why isn't the Right screaming their heads off that Bush is wasting resources in Iraq when he should have been concentrating on the Wahabbis?   I want the heads of the people that caused 9/11, but I want the right heads.   I see Iraq has a wasteful distraction of that goal.   The Wahabbis attacked us, killed many civilians, and they need to pay the price.   So why aren't we making them pay the price?

There is a difference between collaterial damage and intentially killing innocent by-standers.  A big difference, grampster.  

United States policy with respect to the Middle East is fraught with blunders and miscalculations.  Iran has been particularly troublesome.  I question the original wisdom of returning the Shah to power in the first place, back in 1953.  But, once done, it was not a good idea to abandon him, as we did.  Additionally, as a result of the disempowerment of the CIA, we didnt have the intelligence to be able to take Khomeini as a credible threat.  Interesting that French and Israeli Intelligence had a better read on the situation than we did.    

Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder.  At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East.  We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.

Yep.   The US has screwed up in respect to the Middle East many many times.  As for the disempowerment of the CIA...  that might have been caused by the fact that the CIA seems to be more interested in overthrowing countries and installing vicious dictators, rather than, oh say...  gathering intelligence.

Installing the Shah of Iran was a very bad idea.  Once we put him in power, we also didn't fully support him.   There's a fitting irony there.   Backing Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war wasn't as much a disastrous blunder as you'd think.  The goal of supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war was to make both countries kill large numbers of people, destroy their infrastructure and put both countries in heavy debt.  It obviously worked.  

If our diplomats had been more clear, Gulf War wouldn't have happened.  Previous to the Gulf War, Saddam thought he was on relatively decent terms with the US.  He specifically asked the US about Kuwait.   The State department flack said "We have no opinion in your border dispute."  (paraphrased)   Kuwait had been a providence of Iraq until the Brits broke them off and made them a seperate country.  Also, Kuwait was slant drilling, producing oil above OPEC levels, etc.  Iraq was up to their eyeball in debt, and Kuwait wasn't helping matters by stealing Iraqi oil and driving down prices.   Did this warrent their invasion?  Of course not.  But Kuwait didn't help the situation any by their behavior.

The Middle East is a hotbed of discontent.  One of the reasons (and a big one) is all the meddling the powers and superpowers have done over there.  Oil?  Yep.  Israel and the Palestinians?  Yep.  (I do believe that the United States should support the ONLY legitimate democracy in the Middle East).  Islamic radical fundamentalism?  Yep.  And on and on and on&

The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here.  It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.  

Or, do you disagree?

Israel is not completely a democracy.  Nor are they entirely friendly towards the US.   I recommend looking beneath their thin cover of "legitimate democracy" and take a closer look at their behavior.

Yes, I disagree.  Iraq had nothing to do with the Wahabbi lunatics.  We would have been better served by invading a country that had ANYTHING to do with the religious wackos that attacked us.  (Does Afghanistan ring a bell?  Look up how many troops we have stationed there.)   What you advocate (and what happened) is stirring up a hornet's nest in a country that did not support Wahabbism while smugly saying our sole intention is 'liberating' said country.   You cannot have it both ways.  Either we are liberating Iraq or we are occupying Iraq.  The US needs to make up its bloody mind.  

We'd have been better off liberating/occupying a country that had something to do with attacking us, instead of using the excuse of the 'war on terrorism' to settle old scores and now pretty much ignoring the Wahabbis.