the war in Iraq isn't working and it is getting worse by the day a complete waste of US lives and treasure and it has only made the USA less safe

Sure it's working, you just are looking for things which were not the purpose of our being there, and you are ignoring the fact that sometimes there are setbacks in the best of plans. We went to Iraq to stop Saddam. That was done. We went to Iraq to stop his weapons of mass destruction program. That was done. We went to Iraq to stop Saddam's civil rights violations. That was done. We went to Iraq to stop the country from becoming a safe haven for Islamic Terrorists. That was done. Once in Iraq we could not just say "Saddam's gone, so are we. Bye-eee!" A strong Iraqi government with a strong Iraqi Military, Law Enforcement and fair Legal System and to be put in place. This road was a little rocky, but it's getting done, as is rebuilding Iraq. Don't give me that garbage that the US is rebuilding what the US destroyed bit, that has been proven false a long time ago. The US has been rebuilding the Infrastructure laid to waste by the Saddam Government, plus damage done by the war. In Addition we've been finding things buried in Iraq that Saddam claimed he didn't have and on occassion we find more stuff. Over half the Iragis love their freedom and having their say by voting. Even the Insurgents prove they love their newfound freedom by fighting on. They would have never had that freedom under Saddam. The US is not taking great losses in a series of wars which lasted as long as they did. In fact US casaulties and deaths are pretty light. What is going on in Iraq is that it is a battlefront for the Mid-east/West clash. Everyday that the Iranians, AQ, Syrians and others push the Insurgency to fight on shows us why we cannot just up and leave those Iraqis and it shows why we have to stay and finish the job. No one promised a rose garden in Iraq, but with the proper pressures in the states we can accomplish the mission we set out to do in Iraq instead of wasting people's times in having to defend what is going on. I do not view the Freedom and Rights of 25 Million Iraqis as a waste of time or efforts. I also think there is nothing wrong in Iraqi Oil paying for the costs for their freedom and rennovations. If we would all take the attitude of "Let's get the job done and do what is right for Iraq" instead of "Let's cut and run and use the US Military and the Iraqi as a political football" then maybe we could actually turn a few attitudes around the world in our favor.

I do not view the Freedom and Rights of 25 Million Iraqis as a waste of time or efforts. ----------------- they're having a sectarian civil war and killing each other and innocent civilians in increasing numbers our military are sitting ducks getting picked off in increasing numbers our taxpayers have spent over $300 billion on this debacle no - it isn't "working" at all

I am not sure you could call what they have a civil war, it's alot closer to one side murdering the other. Sure it's working, exactly for the reasons I have stated. Do you think if the Iraqis still had Saddam in power they would dare pull this nonsense? Not on your life. Now they have their freedoms and they are exercising it.

I am not sure you could call what they have a civil war, it's alot closer to one side murdering the other. Sure it's working, exactly for the reasons I have stated. Do you think if the Iraqis still had Saddam in power they would dare pull this nonsense? Not on your life. Now they have their freedoms and they are exercising it.

nice to hear the USA has brought mass murder to Iraq hilarious that you would make that point and to think when the shooting is over the majority in Iraq who are Shiites will vote to align themselves with Iran against the USA a complete and utter failure for the USA and Bush

Interesting, you talk as if Iraq had no mass murder before the US went there. Obviously you fail to remember Saddam's attacks on the kurds and the murder of his own citizenry. Why is it hilarious? It's true that under Saddam this stuff would not have happened... and why is that? It is because Saddam was very good at ferreting out the troublemakers and putting them to death. Well that figures because for much of his career he was the Ba'ath Party "Hitman". The only way the Shi'ites will win over there is if the Sunnis allow themselves to be slaughtered. The only way Iran will take over is if the Iraqis allow it. No matter what it will be the Iraqis to choose how they will utlimately live or die. They didn't have that choice under Saddam, they only had the choice to go along with Saddam or die. Once again, it's not an utter failure, in fact it's a success.

hardly I don't subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" theory and since the Shiites are the majority in Iraq by a wide margin and have the votes, they don't need to "slaughter" the Sunnis the failure is that at the end of the day the USA has turned a secular Arab country which was a natural enemy of Iran into a natural ally of Iran - and at the same time the USA has made itself into an international pariah hated by everyone in the Middle East and the rest of the world a total failure indeed

Then how about "Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 do?" I don't subscribe to 2 wrongs making a right either, but I am a realist and know that what is wrong is often in the eye of the beholder. Sure the Shi'ites don't need to slaughter the Sunnis, but they are doing it. Haven't you read the papers for the past several months? The success is that at the end of the day the Iraqis will choose their form of government. I have no problems with non-secular governments, as long as that is what the people want and if they don't want it then it's there job to fight against it to avoid it from happening. I could care less what the world likes or dislike, Countries are fickled and they hate you whenever you are not their patsy and love you when your sinking money into their economy. As long as the Iraqi is free and has a say in their government. As long as the Iraqi no longer have to worry about their government leader ordering them spirited away in the night or tortured and killed because they didn't bring home medals from the olympics or the dared to utter that leader's name or because they are of a different faction.. Iraq will be a success

it won't be a "success" when they "elect" a Shiite theocracy which aligns itself with Iran and then nationalize all oil resources in the country it also won't be a "success" when they eject the USA from the permanent bases the USA is building in Iraq at a cost of tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars it won't be a "success" if because a vast majority in Iraq hate the USA for invading their country and causing the deaths of well over 100,000 people, they align themselves with Russia or China or Iran against the USA there was a good reason that Daddy Bush didn't capture Baghdad in Gulf War I Baby Bush has made a mess with no exit strategy - he's stuck in quicksand and our troops and taxpayers are paying for his mistake to say nothing of creating a whole new generation of terrorists who hate the USA for invading a Muslim country and causing the deaths of so many people

Au contraire, it's a success no matter who the Iraqis elect because that is what is called "the will of the people" in action. A democracy is where the people get the party or people the majority wants in office. That can be achieved through the mob rules type of democracy where each individual vote counts and the end talley decides or where there is a fair system such as the electoral college in place and the party or person is elected by the districts of the country. For as long as the Iraqi people have a say, there will be a continued success. The US being there to help protect Iraq is a bonus for the Iraqi. It helps insure that there government will not fall prey to outside forces until the Iraqi government has the Military and Law enforcemnet agencies built up so that they can handle their own security. To cut and run on the Iraqi because we do not have the backbone to see the job to the end will only cause a success turn into a failure. In addition if the country of Iraq wishes for the US to have permanent bases then that would be a success for all involved. US Military bases bring in a lot of money to the economy of the country and properly placed bases are an asset to the US and it's military. The US does not just go into a country, plop a base down and announce "we are hear". Each of the bases in West Germany in the early 80s, for example, were said to cost the US $1 Million a year or more, depending on size. Any damage to the farmer's fields by an air craft crashing made some poor farmer an instant millionaire. The businesses off base take an upsurge in business from the military due to our men and women wanting souvenaires to send home. In many areas the closeness of the US Military and loccals results in each group getting to see and understand each other a little better, despite some setbacks that are bound to occur. I see you easily fall prey to propaganda. The truth is that no matter which country you speak of the following holds true. Some of the people will like the US, others will hate the US, and most won't really care one way or the other. The average person might not care for certain things the US, or it's citizens, do.. but do not confuse that with hating the US. You can love people and still not like some of the things they do. The spinsters out there love to project the idea that if a person doesn't like one thing about the US then the person hates the US. It helps feed their agenda

George H.W. Bush didn't take Iraq in Gulf War 1 only because his one world masters at the UN told him to not touch Saddam, not touch Iraq. Bush then embarassed the US and everyone in it by going back on his word to the Iraqi people and prostrating himself and the entire US to that worthless UN. The UN, btw, were the ones that brought us great successes like the Korean War. They failed in everything they touched, such as Somalia and the mid-east. They failed in the cold war. They turned from a diplomatic corp to being a world government, at least in their minds they are. The UN is great for declaring military actions on places and sending off Americans and Europeans to die because they have no standing army of their own. Talk about complete failure, the UN is it. Bush did the right thing. We went to Bosnia and Herzegovina becuase "Thar was a killin' agoin' on thar." and it had to be stopped. Well that was no huge success either, but what do you expect, it was another wonderful UN War. In Iraq the same things were going on and worse and it was right to go stop it. I love the No Exit Strategy idea. The entire Exit Strategy was to with drawal troops when the job was done. The job isn't done yet, ergo we haven't gotten to the exit strategy point yet. Anti-Bushies can be such a funny lot. :) I don't feel going to Iraq was a mistake and neither do half the people I talk to. They feel mistakes were made but going to Iraq was not one of them. Of course the Anti-Bush spinsters want to make people think that if someone feels a mistake was made then that means the entire proposition is a mistake and that is illogical reasoning. The terrorists are there anyway, you keep failing to realize that. To say Bush is creating terrorists is like saying FDR created the Nazis. lol

Claim: Former President George Bush wrote that trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War in 1991 would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs." Status: True. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War: "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." If only his son could read.

Much more Iraqis have died in the few years we have been there than in the twenty something years when Hussein was in power. Yet we're met with great resistance when we are, according to you, doing them a favor. Why the resistance? You are not Iraqi so you cannot speak for them, just as I cannot speak for them. But they are demonstrating something, and we are not stopping to listen. Are we seriously justifying the deaths of many Iraqi's for the good of their entire nation? What nation will be left? If the people of Iraq were oppressed during Hussein's campaign why could they not assert themselves in the fashion they are doing so now. They do not seem to be afraid of death. I've seen you casually joke that Iraqi ballots consisted of: That swell guy Hussein, or yes please kill me and my family. But that wasn't the case. Hussein stood in power, not because he would dangled death in front of voters, but because he ran unopposed. You can argue that no one dared opposed him for fear of death from Hussein and the Ba'ath party. But Iraqis vying for power now face the very same threat of death. I'm not advocating Hussein, but I'm saying we are not doing any justice to their people.

Iraqi's watched as their children wwere raped in front of them, their children watched as their parents were tortured................these people were tyrants.......we are all better off without them......you need to understand something other than your perpetual hatred for the President..........you really need to get over the election........thats where all this vitriol is coming from..don't tell me all this other blather....the root of it is you lost the election and so nothing Bush can do is going to get anything but criticizm from people like you. The Iraqi people do not feel the way you say..thats bolderdash! I have talked to people who have been there and know.....the media will not show anything positive, and it frustrated our soldiers.......

Meanwhile, the president?s approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low for the Newsweek poll: 33 percent, down from an already anemic 36 percent in August. Only 25 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country, while 67 percent say they are not. Foley?s disgrace certainly plays a role in Republican unpopularity: 27 percent of registered voters say the scandal and how the Republican leadership in the House handled it makes them less likely to vote for a Republican Congressional candidate; but 65 percent say it won?t make much difference in determining how they vote. And Americans are equally divided over whether or not Speaker Hastert should resign over mishandling the situation (43 percent say he should, but 36 percent say he shouldn?t).

Foley is gone and we have alot more important things to worry about now than whether gay guys talked dirty in Instant Messages, I mean they didnt even have sex.......atlest Clinton actually had sex, well that depends on what you define what sex is, is hahaha.... Bush is in the 40% not that it matters, he doesnt wet his finger and stick it into the air to see which way the winds blowing, he is a man who makes decusions based on what he thinks is right and those around him council...not on whether you will like him or not. I am more interested in keeping my children and grand children alive and out of the hands of terrorists.

LOL You caught his obvious mistake on the polls too, eh? I love people who spout off poll numbers with out really knowing what polls are. Polls only poll a small percentage of the people in the area they are responsible for polling. Places like Rassmussen's and Gallup go country wide, whereas other polls are state and local polls. The polls usually only poll anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand people at a time and sometimes polls hit the same people. There is also a degree of accuracy on polls, some are plus or minus 3 percent while others say 5%. I don't need to poll people to fall with in a 5% accuracy rating, I can usually get around that degree of accuracy from listening to people talk. :) Polls are an indication of what people think but you can't go by just one poll, you have to look at as many as possible and still make a guess. Some polls happen in Conservative areas and will often reflect high marks for conservatives, others will happen in liberal areas and often reflect what the liberal thinking is. In short Polls are simply guidelines which can reflect whatever the ones taking the poll want to show. The only poll that really means anything is the one where you go cast your ballot and vote. This week Gallup says Bush is at 44% but when you go to Rassmussen you see he is at 41%. I get a laugh out of this because normally Gallup is lower than Rassie's ratings are. On the Rassmussen site you can see how the figures for Bush's approval change daily and monthly. Sometimes the changes are minimal but sometimes the approval rating jumps by 5 or more points. That is because people change their minds frequently and others are polled. Polls are interesting to keep track of, but that is basically all they are.. an interest. When Bush was elected the polls rated him in the mid 40s, yet he received over 51% of the vote. Kerry's approval rating was around 50% and he received only 47% of the vote or slightly more. The polls do not accurately show what the people think.

Uh, according to Gallup, the presidential approval rating is 44%, not 33% lol

president Ahmadinejad is national disgrace With hes People of hes country what sick man he is Embarresing he is He better Never step foot in this nation ever again