To think the billions spent in Iraq could have built stronger levee systems in New Orleans or for that matter could have been put into social security.So the republicans and democrats can find something new to fight about. I cant understand we invade a country that is rich in oil and oil prices soar. Why do you think that is? Could it possible be the demand created by all the military vehicles that dont have to go through emissions control or fuel mileage regulation? I dont feel the end justifys the means when it comes to Iraq. George W. Bush has failed as the president and the history books will
show this. I wonder if Bush will go to Mardi gras next year or even if another republican will even try to campaign in louisana ever again?

It's amazing how many anti-war people are using Katrina as a way to blast this administration.

Just curious....but did you also tell Bill Clinton he should not have "wasted" money on cruise missiles into AFghanistan, Irag, and Yugoslavia while he was president?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The iraq issue does not sit well with me but as far as the outcome that remains to be seen.
As far as Katrina and this administration, When should any administration be help accountable, I mean Governor Bush frooze durring 911, he appoints people that are not qualified to hold the position they are appointed to. When should any administration be held accountable? How many people have to die for bad decision making. Katrina is just "todays" issue we still have three more years of this A Hole. The buck stops at the president or it should stop good president, and a good one will take that responsibilty.
What really ticks me about this administration the the total lack of care for the people in this country.
I am not anti-war, but think leadership is also assigning the right people for the right job, one thing Clinton did well. Even republicans will aggree with that. When the huricanes hit Florida, they were there under Clinton. They were there under Bush because it was an election year and needed Florida for the votes. This country is not longer free, This is a fasict government run by the corporations.
We are given the illusion of choice which has no meaning when the Supreme court can appoint the president. I am not Democrat or Republican, there are both out of thier minds. To far left, "you got to be kidding me", to far right "you got to be kidding me". Now the media is almost completely owned by the right wing, and where can you get honest, open discussion about the real issues in this country. But what are the people to do? I mean you have to believe something sometime. Its scares me even more when people dont ask "why is this happening" "what can we do about it" The republicans care about property, and the Democrat's care about people but dont share a spine for one person. Now this is like a big game My team is better there your team!
This whole country needs help, and we need new parties that really speak for the people. I dont want more taxes, I also dont want to in debt China for billions of dollars.

NO, what is amazing is how you instantly label someone speaking out against bush as pro clinton.
i was all for impeachment of clinton, but i now think the same, and they impeach Nixon for you know what? listening. all depends on who will be writing history books. you should have read some history books about communists in USSR back in 1980's

No. That's not what I was saying at all. It's about hypocrisy. Dems were quite "hawkish" during Clinton's administration.


Don't bet on it. They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan....and history considers him one of the best.

?????

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

well.... communists were portrayed as breave, god like figures responsible for everything that's good in USSR.

you may want to wake up and realise that many more people then you think who don't like bush, neither liked clinton

Well if you are old enough to remember the weapons scandel that Mr. Reagan and Mr.Bush's daddy had in their term. It was called the Iran contra scandle. How easy the republican party lays blame on democrats when the weapons of mass destruction they have once belonged to us. Jp5 you need some history lessons. you may be a brilliant person but you shouldnt bash one party when both are out for the same thing Money and greed.

Could it be any more obvious that Iraq has not been worth the cost? It's amazing to me that some people in the USA have this instinctive defense mechanism to protect Bush at all costs, as if he's more important than the country! President Bush took us into Iraq as his top priority in the War on Terror. During this escapade we haven't found any of these WMD. So either the administration did an awful job of identifying the risks, or they have allowed WMD to escape into the hands of terrorists. And now Iraq is a larger terror center than Afghanistan was before 9/11 . . . killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians is effectively breeding more terrorists than we are capturing or killing. Also making Iraq the priority has left Osama Bin Laden (the evildoer who actually attacked us on 9/11, in case you forgot - it seems that President Bush has) at large a full FOUR YEARS LATER. Clearly the war in Iraq has made the situation worse and cost us huge sums of money that could have been used on countless other valuable projects - actual disaster preparedness, levee improvement, intelligence, education . . . you name it.

listen u genius, what evidence do you have that osama attacked us on 9:11 or that he was behind USS cole attack?

I'd say... intellegence reports from the FBI, and the fact that he claimed responibility for the attacks.