Huh? Looks like he is pushing for Dictator....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16624979/

OK, Trixter, we know. You'd prefer someone wishy washy like good Bill, right.

Well, wait a minute Deane. At what point does it all become a big " middle finger " to the citizens of The United States? I'd say rhetoric like that from Bush and Cheney is about as far as I can tolerate. I really try to, in my own mind, work with them. Remain open minded. Etc.. But that kind of talk ( as opposed to " we will work together towards solutions " which was the tone right after the elections ) is an about-face from what they claimed they'd do/act like/follow through on.

I'm not swayed just because someone is strong. WHAT they are strong about counts for something too. And if they are now just saying " Do what you can to stop us - it won't matter to anyone on this team." Well, can you not understand some genuine frustration with that kind of tone?

>>>"I'm not swayed just because someone is strong. WHAT they are strong about counts for something too. And if they are now just saying " Do what you can to stop us - it won't matter to anyone on this team." Well, can you not understand some genuine frustration with that kind of tone?"


The President conducts the wars, not Congress. You can't have 535 commanders-in-chief. Somehow this gets lost on the younger generation.

We would have a far easier time of it, had this war been just. Truth is it wasn't and it's costing us a lot in terms of dollars and people.

A majority of the country has reached some acceptance of that. Seems to me, our commander in chief could exercize the strength of character necessary to act on that.

Oh, wait...

OK, if you had an employee who you couldn't just fire ... say, you had to pay him/her a ton of money if you let them go ... but they were making decisions that were part of their job description, but they were making BAD decisions, causing problems for lots of other people.

Would you be right to do whatever oversight and guidance you could? Of course you would. That's the situation we're in with our current president.

Just because the president is the commander-in-chief doesn't give him the right to make whatever incompetent, short-sighted decisions he can with no one checking him along the way.

I'm glad to see congress talking about taking apart Bush's decisions and making sure they're the right ones. This is not about GOP vs. Dems. It's about making sure our country's actions kick it up a notch, quality-wise. Just ask all those Republican senators and congresspeople who are clearly upset and p'ed off at how Bush is handling the war.

Again, no Bush fan, but watch his 60 minutes interview tonight. (Just watched in an earlier time zone). Critics will see nothing but the same old story. Those with an open mind will see a human being that despite questionable policies, has a heart and determined belief he is doing the right thing.

So he's just stupid then?

I'm serious.

No, I don't believe he is stupid.

Well that does kind of rule out the "has a heart", and is "doing the right thing", given the information we have on the Iraq war, and domestic civil rights violations, doesn't it?

"Again, no Bush fan, but watch his 60 minutes interview tonight. (Just watched in an earlier time zone). Critics will see nothing but the same old story. Those with an open mind will see a human being that despite questionable policies, has a heart and determined belief he is doing the right thing."

There's no question that he has a determined belief that he is doing the right thing. My cousin got to meet him after he was re-elected in 2004 (one of my cousin's best friends is a chief in the Secret Service and is a personal Bush bodyguard) and my cousin came away amazed at "how nice of a guy Bush was." I don't doubt that Bush is a nice guy to be around, he comes across that way and it helped his cause in both 2000 and 2004 when he ran against stiff cardboard cutouts without personality both times ...

That said, it doesn't make this war right, or just, in any way. Just because **HE** sees it as the "right thing to do" doesn't make it such. I honestly don't think that George W. Bush has the mental capacity to see the error of his ways. Others who were in his administration who COULD (namely Colin Powell) got out. Bush doesn't want to be contradicted or questioned, he doesn't want to surround himself with thinkers and doers, thus the cast of "yes-men" he has in his inner circle. That is the sign of 1) someone who is insecure and 2) someone incapable of accepting reason and thought from others.

And this man is President? That's way too dangerous in my book.

DJ..
I prefer someone that doesn't jump the gun! And someone that doesn't admit that God told him to INVADE Iraq....
This guy is a nut and if you can't see it then your more CON then we have been lead to believe here!
And as for Slick Willy..... I didn't agree with everything he did and I put him down a lot during his stay in the White House but he wasn't a megalomaniac like DICKtator DUHbya is...
TAKE OFF THE BLINDERS!!!!!!!

OK, DJ, we know. You'd prefer someone that tells you what to do and what to believe like DUHbya and Co.

For me Bush and those who still support him, have lost the ability to see the bigger picture. With the war now costing over 350 billion dollars, which by the way could have built 35,000 new schools, and the debt we are imposing on my children, not only is the war a no win situation, the debt will and has already crippled many other important programs here at home. Another no win situation.

What I just can't figure out about Bush is why he even asks for expert opinons on things, he's already made his mind up.

Deane-If you could have a meeting with Bush what would you tell him?

"What I just can't figure out about Bush is why he even asks for expert opinons on things, he's already made his mind up."

Well, like you Chris, I feel like I fell for that stuff too. It gave me hope that he would find a way within his choice. Which were - to paraphrase; Go Long. Go Hard. Or Go Home. I'm certain, NOW, that he LOVED the option of going HARD.

Actually, I take that back. Really. I do.

I believe he knows and believes that he, personally, has blown it. And although I've stopped short of saying it until now - Going hard seems the best choice.

Pulling out now would REALLY sting for me. Although I want it. It's the toughest batch of choices I have ever seen available for a President.

If we were to pull out now, I could give a shit about " the message it would send to our enemies ( I mean come on, does anyone really care what our enemies think at this point? Does anyone really believe that they are " on the run " and " fearful of attacks in the future now that we know we mean business? " Please. It hasn't slowed them down one bit and it won't ).

The problem is this, to me; If we pull out now, without ANY measure of meaningful success ( and that bar gets lowered daily ) then the 3000+ who have died, and the 20K injured, will have died TRULY for nothing. I'm pissed that we ever got to this point and that's why NOTHING looks good anymore.

But it says something really bad for this administration that after many years of this war, we can't find enough reason to be happy with a result by any definition or on any level. Now, until we get SOMETHING to be glad about, we ( and I use the term " we " for the first time in talking about the war - it's complex how I feel about all this ) we won't leave.

The one good thing about all this is that I believe it will be over, for us, sooner than later. " Winning " by any measure sold to us previously, will not happen. So now we just need an excuse.

And THOUSANDS will die while Bush just finds the lowest common denominator. Which is a moving target now and I hate him for that.

He blew it. He won't fix it. It can't be fixed. He just wants to make us feel better than we do currently before we leave.

That's my opinion.

So now the question becomes, what is the LOWEST measure of success that makes this the CLOSEST to being worth it all. On any and every level you choose to define it. Because THAT is when we'll leave. And not a day before.

He thought it would be much easier. He thought a LOT of things would be a lot easier. He thought he was going to cruise on the coat-tails of Clinton, his father and eveyone else previous to him while he appointed friends ( unqualified friends ) to posts and they would have a grand old time for 4, maybe 8 years. Had those years been as easy as he thought, he may have come out smelling like a rose. Instead, every single thing he touches is out of his reach. He was never up for the challenge. We didn't know of the challenges before we elected him the first time. Heck. I thought we could coast for a while too. I was wrong. Just like he was. And that has exposed some pretty terrible things about me, him, us and the world.

God, I hope we can implement something that makes us learn from this in the future. I really do.

Well said. I share a lot of those feelings.

Toughest choices indeed. Bush is really in the vice right now for sure. He put himself there for the most part, but he's still there today.

The minimum level of success to me is an end to the major conflict period.

IMHO, there is no case remaining where we don't lose face before the world. So, we should embrace the horror of that, do it, then get help, then get out.

>>>"Deane-If you could have a meeting with Bush what would you tell him?"

Chris, you ask the hard and intelligent questions.

I assume you mean, if I had the opportunity, what would I suggest he do. First, I assume most people would want to shoot their mouth off without substance like many do on this forum. They'd want to talk about the past and everything they didn't agree with. Not me.

I think I'd suggest he ignore the liberals, ignore the press, ignore Congress and find the best military mind he can find, one who is knowledgeable in the field and with the current Middle East mindset. I'd suggest he get all the politicians out of the way and turn the job over to him and tell him take all the troops he needs and clean it up.

If people shoot at us from a Mosque, shoot back, blow it up, or whatever. No safe havens. Let the trouble makers know this is what's going to happen.

In other words, where's General Patton when we need him?

I thought all of that had already been tried?

No?

Or are you saying that he is just too distracted by the process to do a good job?

CJ, I think he and all Presidents respond too much to what they think will fly with the public. I think he indeed has compromised the job by worrying too much about the political ramifications. I think he worried too much about what the Muslims think. All a waste of time. They won't like us anyway.

We were afraid to launch a certain attack on a Muslim holy period, so the Muslims attacked us during the holy period. This was several years ago.

We were afraid of blowing up a Mosque, so the Muslims blew them up. We should have announced right in the beginning that if terrorists hid out in Mosques and attacked us from them, they were no longer considered Mosques by us and would be attacked.

People don't understand anything but power.

I think we're forgetting to put some of the blame on the people who voted for Bush in 2004. CLEARLY they knew what kind of a man he was based on his previous 4 years in office -- he hasn't changed, so what did people expect? New founded intelligence?

Voted for Bush in 2004? You're part of the Iraq mess. Own up to it.

>>>"New founded intelligence?"

I believe is would be "New found intelligence?"

If liberals are so concerned with "thousands" dying, why arent they pushing for legislation to treat Aids like any other STD, and isolate those that keep acting irresponsibly?

Why dont they push for a natioal speed limit 0f 35 MPH, that would save lots of lives.

Why dont they demand Mcdonalds and other fast food restaurants be shut down?

Why dont they demand bicyclists be kept off highways?

nwokie, maybe we ought to raise the speed limit to 95 MPH so the American war deaths look small by comparson. Also, take the labels off food, allow saccrine and other banned ingredints back in food, and top things off with the repeal of bicycle helmet laws and get those deadly bikes back on sidewalks where they belong.

deane, you're offically the top pdxradio grammar cop now. congrats.

40,000 + traffic deaths per year, total deaths in Iraq under 3,000 it already is ssmall by comparison.

And considering the number of deaths in the US that would have occured if Saddam had been allowed to destroy the middle east oil fields, priceless.

Thats the job of the US military, protect US interests.


The job of the liberals seems to be, protect Americas enemies.

Nwokie your numbers are a bit misleading. Of the 40,000 plus who died in car crashes how many drunk drivers, who could have made the choice not get behind the wheel, caused the accident? How many chose not to wear saftey belts? How do you statistically describe "stupid."

Deane- I was under the impression that Bush was getting good information from the military brass already assembled. One thing I would add to your comments is the need to allow the international community and particularly those who understand middle eastern politics and religion, in on the conversation. This "going it alone" kind of policy needs to end in my opinion.

>>>"One thing I would add to your comments is the need to allow the international community and particularly those who understand middle eastern politics and religion, in on the conversation. This "going it alone" kind of policy needs to end in my opinion."


I believe Bush broke his pick trying to get them in and they refused. I suppose one could argue they might have had good reason to stay out.

I heard a good analogy the other day concerning the EU. These countries all hate each other most of the time, so when someone wants to get them unified, they get them all to hate someone else, which is usually the US. During the cold war, I guess it was the Soviet Union.

Nwokie said - " If liberals are so concerned with "thousands" dying, why arent they pushing for legislation to treat Aids like any other STD, and isolate those that keep acting irresponsibly?..."

You present those ideas as if they are the same thing as what we are talking about. They're not though.

Not to pick on you or attack you too hard - but you make a lousy point to me.

Nwokie,

How about sharing a bit more on saddams plan to destroy mid east oil fields. Also, tell me how this was to cause more US deaths here. And further, how did we not hear of the plan to stop saddam from destroying oil fields . . . I thought we were there to get wmds . . .

Are we getting the promised oil revenues yet? Or did we get some, just not nearly as much as we were told? Or have we gotten all we had expected and it just didn't cover the bill?

What's the status on all that?

I'm not asking that as loaded - I honestly don't remember hearing.

It's going to multi-nationals. They are getting a 30 year deal, written into law by the provisional government.

Won't do much for our national bill at all.

So was that what was meant when the initial selling of this was " We ( The U.S. ) will receive oil revenues for the war effort."?

Or was there a, you know, " change in plans "?

I don't know the answer to that. Solid question...

(waiting with interest for somebody else to chime in)

when you think about it, filling up a supertanker a week of iraqi oil would erase all the downsides of of the iraq mess for the president. But alas, we've a Texas oilman for president who wasn't even able to find oil in TEXAS.

1 year and 364 days till the end of our long national nightmare.

Well, actually, I WAS looking for some tangible benefit and money came to mind. Not as the best or most promising - I'm just thinking. I have no idea what the revenue stats are for 1 tanker. But I would feel a little better knowing that we weren't footing the ENTIRE bill. All of it.

Saddam was in a tight situation, he was losing control, and would have been replaced by one of his sons, because he wasnt bringing in enough revenues to keep the army happy.

His only option was to reinvade Kuwait and Saudia Arabia, hoping that by threatening to destroy the oil fields, we wouldnt kick him out again.

That would have put oil through the roof, and everytime oil goes up a lot, people die.

its economics, just like we dont put governors on cars preventing them from exceeding 35 mph, the economic impact would be devestating, so we have accepted that we can lose 40-50 thousand lives a year, so commerce can move at a reasonable speed.

We don't ban smoking, even though that would save hundreds of thousands of lives, because of the economics.

If the government would stop subsidizing the tobacco farmers, then maybe a pack of cigarettes would go up in price so high nobody could afford it!

The government has all their anti smoking literature, commercials, etc but still subsidizes them.....go figure.

Your government at work!

Two words Skybill: Phillip Morris.

Chris, Yeah. Add three more words; Money & Campaign Donations

I am VERY much for a GIANT sin tax.

Look at the "deal" the states cut with the tobacco industry, to protect themselves from lawsuits, they increase the price of a pack about a dollar, and turn that money over to the states, who spend it as they please. Hasnt hurt sales, helps states balance their budgets.

Except for the little problem, people die.

As I said, economics trumps lives, always has, always will.

I'm not saying that its wrong, just the fact.

I have said this before, the terroists don't need to attack and kill American's on our soil we seem to find ways to kill ourselves, and with higher death tolls.

Terroists should finance tobacco, fatty foods, and all other unhealthy products out on the market.

The liberals get all tense over 3000 military deaths in Iraq over a period of 4 years, but have nothing to say about 7000 people dying every year from wrong prescriptions because pharmacists can't read the doctors writing on prescriptions. (Time Magazine, January 15, 2007)

Don't get me wrong, I deplore young people getting killed in wartime, but the death toll has been kept pretty low.

My question is where is the outrage over those 7000 deaths. There is none. Since Bush isn't involved, who cares. 3000 deaths vs. 27,000 unnecessary deaths in the U.S. The pissing and moaning about the death toll in Iraq is just more liberal dribble.

You just can't marginalize 3K deaths and a ton of money spent, not to mention a whole lotta dead Iraqis, all started on either a lie or horrible mistake.

There was no lie and no mistake.

Its like a bank robber who says he has a gun, and threatens to shoot someone, the police take him down.

Saddam's govt claimed to have WMD, they had the potential to create WMD, they were a threat to the region, therefore a threat to US interests.

Saddam refused to comply with agreements to prove he didnt have WMD's.

>>>"You just can't marginalize 3K deaths"

I'm not marginalizing anything, I'm saying if you libs want a cause, there are other things you can also be focusing on with much higher death tolls.

There is a difference in "marginalizing" and putting in perspective.

Every soldiers death is a tragedy to that soldiers family, and his/her comrades. However, the reason you have a military is to use it to protect national interests, and all soldiers understand that their lives are secondary to the mission.

I served for 25 years, my wife served, my daughter is currently serving, my daughters husband is serving, and I have a niece and nephew serving.

Deane_johnson, here's my problem with you: You say Bushwhacked should have all the power in this war and Congress shouldn't have a say. I assume you have heard of the concept of Congress declaring war, haven't you. Cheney says you can have a war by committee, but it seems to me every war has been by conducted that way, or don't you believe Congress should be involved in a war?

You are right, we should be up in arms about the 7000 deaths from wrong prescriptions, but we should also be up in arms about these same people being made to choose between medicine and food because they can't have both, which is why you should support the bill in the House that calls for Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. However, like the good little conservative you are, you sit there with you teeth in your mouth and say nothing about the price of drugs. How many lives are being lost because of that???

One more thing, stop being such a hypocrite. You sit there and defend that power happy son of a bitch in the White House and tell us how we need to back what he's doing. THEN you have the nerve to wrap yourself in the flag and tell us about freedom and liberty. Give me a goddamn break! If you support Bush, you don't know the meaning of either.

Earth to Aok, Earth to Aok.

Well at least Deane recognizes that negligence is negligence. ( Iraq and penmanship included )

Now if we could all come to an understanding of " accident " we'd be set.