Mr. President, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt

1. Let's assume there was bad intelligence and although the buck should stop with you, let's just say that you were duped about WMD's and that is why you went to Iraq.....

2. Then once you got to Iraq and found out there were no more WMD's (like all the weapons inspectors had been reporting for years), let's assume that at some point there were these weapons and somehow Saddam would bring them back if given the chance and he would somehow pose a threat in the future although there has never been any indication that he ever posed a threat to the US......

3. So because he never posed an imminent threat nor was there any evidence that he ever would, let's just say he was a bad, bad man that killed his own people. Even though these mass killings are in dispute but because we are in "benefit of the doubt mode" we will say they did happen. Even though it occurred in the late 80's and Reagan, your daddy, and Clinton did not see that it was necessary to go to war over and create an unstable country that has worse living conditions than were ever seen under Saddam's rule.......

4. So let's just say Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda even though no such evidence existed. In fact evidence to the contrary supports the idea that Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies.......

5. Therefore we will move to the assumption that the war on terrorism is being fought in Iraq even though numerous studies demonstrate that the terrorism is in direct correlation to our military presence in the region. Further, studies conclusively indicate that most terrorists/insurgents fighting in Iraq have never had terrorist affiliation in the past, bolstering the argument that the war in Iraq is the catalyst for terrorist recruitment.......

6. Therefore we move to the final argument that now that we are there we must stay in order to support the Iraqi people until they can defend themselves and maintain their newfound democracy that has actually created new and worsening chaos among the numerous religious factions.


With those 6 different explanations for your justification to send our troops into harms way I now must ask you this Mr. Bush. You said we will stay until the job is done. When the country breaks out into all out civil war because of the mess you created (70% of your own party believes civil war is inevitable); how many more American lives are you willing to sacrifice just so you don't have to say you were wrong? 3,000?.....4,000?....10,000? What are the limitations of your hubris? How do you sleep at night? What will you say to your maker when he asks you why you did it? God may not give you the benefit of the doubt. Good luck.

he has an accountability problem. He always has. Nothing is ever his fault. Those who attack him are traitors. It's a psychological problem.

WORLD ! Very nice :hi:

:kick:

a fucking monster of proportions that none of us can even imagine.

Put him in a movie against Freddy Krueger, and he'd be the first to die, even before all the black kids Freddy likes to kill. He isn't a monster, and he has no proportions. He's almost a two-dimensional character; turn him on his side and he disappears. Calling him a "monster of proportions" is like saying he deserved to wear that flight suit, because he's a true warrior.

Now the people BEHIND Bush...they're monsters of proportions.

The opposite of monster is angel or gentleman, and Bush sure as hell isn't either one of those.

Bush's only ideas are minor, and usually bad - mismanage a baseball team, try to ride a Segway, eat a pretzel with bourbon. He can't even spell Iraq, let alone create an invasion of it.

And I'm sorry, mtnsnake, but you sure haven't seen a lot of horror movies. The opposite of "monster" is "victim," and Bush isn't that...until the next election, we hope. If you want a true simile, Bush is like Shaggy, who runs and runs and never solves the mystery and gets his sandwich stolen by a dog. (And if you have never seen an episode of "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?" you REALLY are out of it.)

You can forgive him if you want, since you think he's just a victim of "other" monsters. Whatever floats your boat, tom.

Bush is incapable of original thought so he is a victim to an extent. However, he goes along with whatever he is told even when it is harmful to the country. That makes him an accessory thus a monster. As far as Iraq, I think it is one of the very few things he did formulate as a general idea to the extent he said "let's attack Iraq" then he let his more cerebral staffers around him figure a way to pull it off. The reason he came to the presidency with this obsession with Iraq is that it was personal. Saddam threatened his daddy and his daddy got a lot of criticism for not taking Saddam out.

The neocons plans for blaming Iraq for 911 etc. in order to create an easy and tangible target that would lead to profiteering by Halliburton et al. fit in nicely with Bush's plans.

So, I think on some levels Bush is so ignorant that he feels his reasons are justified even beyond his personal convictions because his necon handlers tell him they are. So he is both a puppet and a pawn. In either case, he is a disaster and deserving of all criticism he gets.

They were just hoping Saddam would do "something stupid" so even if their lies and distotions were caught, the ends would justify the means. The problem is, Saddam didn't do antyhing "stooopid" - Bush did.