jeiber

You're whole post is right on. People seem to want to reap the benefits of our country, but when it comes to supporting the fundamentals that made it great (not just under Bush), they don't want to do their part. Must be nice being able to follow the rules that benefit you, but disavowing those you don't like. That's a respectable attitude.... John Kerry calls Bush his President. These people need to think about that. Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

I can understand anyone's dislike of politicians. Calling him an idiot though... please... anybody calling him an idiot needs to take a good hard look at themselves and what they've accomplished in their own lives... To reject Bush's education and business experience is just ignorant. I'm betting most of those calling him an idiot don't have a BS/BA, let alone an MBA. I'm betting those that criticize his business practices have never even held a management position in a corporation, let alone been a CEO. Kallend mentioned 'average' Yale student. Average implies there were some higher, and some lower. He was far from the only one below the average... As far as being 'accused' of insider trading... was he investigated? What was the outcome? I can accuse you of whatever I want, it doesn't mean there's any merit to it. The Clinton's were constantly being investigated for their business practices... privelege accompanies power, no doubt, but it's not unlimited, especially not with the Justice Department and SEC. You're obviously a Democrat! Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1968; MBA, Harvard University, 1975 Founder/CEO of oil and gas company, 1975-1987; managing general partner, Texas Rangers baseball team, 1989-1998 I think very few people on here have the right to call him an 'idiot'.... Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Based on past intelligence reports, U.N. weapons inspectors had asked the Iraqis about such labs. "There were a number of trucks that they showed to us and they had pictures of. But these do not correspond to the ones that are now published by the coalition. They are different," Mr. Blix said. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030529-122922-6267r.htm Until 1995, Iraq denied having had any serious intention of building nuclear weapons, despite abundant evidence to the contrary uncovered by Action Team investigations. Then, after Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and head of the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, defected in August 1995, his revelations about the scope and intensity of the nuclear weapons program threatened the credibility of the government's denial. http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on [biological warfare] and [chemical warfare]; that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html Thank God our administration is wise enough to 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.' I'm curious, what's your opinion on why we went to war? Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Years ago, yes. We should have invaded, but protesters would have said, 'but they don't have wmd's, we can't invade!'. A war with NK right now would be WW III.... and we would likely lose... they have home field advantage and they don't have liberals crying foul over their tactics. Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Insurgent kidnappers, suicide bombers, terrorists; for simplicity of the argument I consider them equal if not the same. Your choice of words doesn't affect the point I'm making... Look at the map on that link. Notice anything many (not all) of the non-supporting countries have in common? Many of them are already fighting insurgencies/wars of their own. I know, it can't be easy sitting on your butt while others work to secure the future of freedom and democracy. If people like you ran the country, Europe would be speaking German, Jews would be nearly extinct, Hawaii would be a Japanese island, and the Alaskan pipeline would lead to Russia (why pay for what you can have for free?). Damn us Americans for coming to the aid of other countries in their time of need! We're such aweful people... The world would be such a better place if we would have just minded our own business... Hitler and Saddam Hussein, maybe they weren't such bad people. As for the genocide and executions under those leaders... the victims and their families probably deserved it - we should've looked the other way. Who are we to help those less fortunate... [/sarcasm] Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

I'm already a veteran... I've done my time. Jeff ps- see message above regarding Korea. Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Uh, yeah.... last I checked there were quite a few countries that not only supported the invasion, but contributed troops and finances as well. But you go ahead and put it all on one person... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq Oh look... most of Europe, including Poland supported the invasion... Russia? They're not afraid of terrorists... "The KGB kidnapped one of the kidnappers, cut off one of his more personal body parts, and shipped it back to the remaining terrorists. The hostages were freed." Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

There's a time for diplomacy and a time for action. When a country has proven to be a threat, and is attempting to develop such weapons, and diplomacy is yielding no results... yes an invasion can be justified. Before they think about it? Once again, I'm amazed at how people resort to putting words in my mouth to bolster their views. Where in the world did I (ever) mention anything like that?!?! Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

It says to Iran, 'we're coming motherfuckers!'. (Quoted from a cartoon from years ago.) You're bitching about 32,000 total deaths in Iraq, but you talk about invading North Korea?!?! If we invaded North Korea, we'd be over a million deaths by now... (assuming they didn't use their nukes), and the global economy would be destroyed for decades... If somebody had invaded NK, BEFORE they were such a threat this wouldn't be an issue. Then again, some people don't learn from the lessons of history. Let's let our opponents establish their weapons programs and a strong military before we do anything about it. I'm curious, (hypothetically speaking) do you think a war would have been more costly (lives and financial) if we allowed SH to strengthen his military force and develop WMD's? 'A stitch in time saves nine'. Then again, I'm sure that's foolish advice.... Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Wow... now it's 30,000 civilian deaths... who is it that you're calling a liar again? Who is it that you're accusing of being misleading? Here we go again.... Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Your'source' clearly states: How is it that you're allowed to change your numbers at any time you want, based on new information, but you hold Bush to a number he stated YEARS ago - prior to the war? Jeff ps- also, please list a reference (with date) where Bush said it would only cost $1B... and how long ago was that?!?! Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

One again, making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.... I'm sure the count is technically pretty correct, I'm not disputing it; I'm disputing your negative spin on the article. Speaking of negative spins... Webster's dictionary (www.webster.com): admit - to concede as true or valid acknowledge - to disclose knowledge of or agreement with I think your suggestive wording speaks for itself... What I continue to find ironic about your posts is that 1) you accuse Bush of being misleading - again, isn't this the pot calling the kettle, 'black'? 2) why do you always quote a source (Bush) that you claim to 'know' to be inaccurate? Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

I'm interested in knowing how that number is broken down: How many enemy combatants were killed during the invasion? How many insurgents were killed after the invasion? How many civilians were accidentally killed by US/Allies during the invasion? How many civilians were accidentally killed by US/Allies after invasion? How many civilians were killed by insurgent attacks/bombings/kidnappings? Then again.... who cares, it's easier to hop on the 'Bush hating bandwagon' and make assumptions to support your view. In regards to polls about Iraqi's wanting us out of there, I have one word: DUH! of course they do. It's a loaded question - of course they want us gone, but I would imagine they want us gone when we're done cleaning up hostiles and rebuilding, they don't want us gone before the country stabilizes a little more. Here's an interesting article about Afghanistan. I bet a few years ago, they felt the way the Iraqi's do today. Now look at the results! More than three-fourths of the people living in Afghanistan say living conditions, security from crime and freedom of expression have improved from the days when they were living under Taliban rule Almost nine in 10 _ 87 percent _ say the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 was a good thing The optimism comes in a country where people say by a 2-1 margin that their own economic situation is bad http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702039.html I think that supports what we've been saying all along. Saddam needed to be removed from power for many reasons, not just one or two.... (see link below) You keep using this false premise to support a conclusion that you insist is true. The logical construct of your argument is flawed, but you always fall back on the 'no WMD's found = lie' view. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1967350#1967350 Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

There's no winning.... if Bush were to take full responsibility, these people would be accusing him of deceptively trying to cover for other agencies. From there, it would proceed to, 'how can Bush fix the problem, when he won't acknowledge that they've done anything wrong?!' Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

You got my vote! You're a lucky guy, those are perfect! Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Fastest belly was 180 something with very little arch. Was at a little over 30,000' though - air was really thin!

Nekkid! Maybe we can do a linked exit - I promise I won't intentionally funnel it! Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

I have no idea how you jump to that conclusion... Where did I say politicians never lied? Where did I say that our intelligence agencies never made a mistake? You guys seem to think I'm happy with the way the war in Iraq has been run. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not. I do believe that Bush is leading our country in the right direction though, though he's made mistakes along the way. Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Huh? You want to accuse others of manipulations, read what you're posting! Holy cow! Not 'other reasons', 'additional' reasons!

Your wording, (i.e. 'real' objective) sounds as if the WMD was a completely false accusation, simply to justify a war. I don't believe that to be the case. My point is: Sadaam needed to be removed from power (for many reasons), and we found what we believed (at the time) to be a very legitimate cause. Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

No. I'm saying they found something that they believed was true at the time, and used it as a reason to invade. If they found with reasonable certainty that there were no WMD's, they would have found another reason to invade. That's not lying.... far cry from it actually. Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

The end that the Bush Administration had in mind all along was removing Sadaam from power. If it wasn't WMD's, it would have been some other reason. We were looking for a reason to invade... Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

The UN?!?!? Are you frickin' kidding me?!?! You're using the organization that spawned the Oil for Food scandal as an authority on accounting? I would trust Arthur Andersen's accounting before the UN! Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

Sadaam had WMD's - he used them against his own people years ago. At what point he destroyed them, or shipped them to Syria, who knows... You are correct, we used WMD's as justification for removing a dictator that was considered a threat - to U.S. interests, as well as to the citizens of Iraq. The end result was achieved (so far), and it is good. I think the quesiton is: does the means justify the end? Jeff Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!