President Dick Cheney used TWoT as an excuse to get us into Iraq.
Saddam's secular dictatorship was anything but sympathetic to Iran,
now Iraq will end up with a Shia 'lesser Iran' that is an inspiration
to fundamentalists across the world.
If you consider the five decades of burning hatred over Israel you
can get an idea of how shortsighted it was to overthrow and occupy
a nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were no
imminent threat to our country-- especially in a time of rising Jihad
against the West.

I dislike Bush because he seemingly lacks the capacity to do anything that the people will wholly support and that my friend is ineffective leadership.

After 9/11 the US had the sympathy of quite literally the World,
it was a blank check to act that would be (not to denigrate the loss)
the envy of any executive.

Nobody said boo about Afghanistan, it was a clear connect the dots
action.
Going into Iraq to finish some old business and burying our military
in the sand down the National Guard for four years was stupidity.

[/quote]hmmI can see what you mean, but I also think that effective leadership comes from results. The general public can dissent all they want, as long as the leader has a vision and is capable of carrying out his agenda for the greater good of not himself, but of the people he leads. I think Abe Lincoln is a great example.

The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, Saddam was an enemy of Israel not the US, and they also invaded for the oil. It's also about placing military base in the region for world domination.

Here is ex prime minister of Israel trying to get the US to attack Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K273jMKBfY

Here a very interesting video about AIPAC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...42434022358005

And don't forget about this

http://www.ussliberty.org/

I don't really dislike Mr. Bush so much as a human being. He might very well be a good person. It's an entity called the Bush Administration I dislike: a multi-headed hydra built on cronyism, group-think, and blind faith.
Mr. Bush surrounded himself with friends, all with the same ideology and a devotion to it, rather than filling his cabinet with a mix of realists and ideologues and based on merit. He shows undying loyalty to his friends, which is good in life, bad in government or business.
The administration is so built on this same-minded idealism and friendship that group-think was bound to happen. I don't think the data was manipulated so much as group-thunk into what the administration wanted to see.
And then, especially in the case of Cheney (I actually don't like him), the administration cloaked itself in secrecy, almost like it was a game. They obsess over secrecy, to the point where any sane citizen would question them... especially with a troubling growth of executive power... and even more troubling, a growing vice presidential power!
Conspiracies or not... it is not foolish to suspect it with such dynamics.
And then... what do you know... things come out where the administration was using secrecy not just for national security, but for campaign-boosting agendas and the suppression of "enemy" politicals...

I don't know whose to blame or even if it was done on purpose, but this administration has been undermining the democratic system by using manipulation on grand scale. And not just in campaign strategy and power-keeping... but in bigger things.
I have no problem with nation-building or democracy-spreading... If war is what it takes and we can manage that war... I'm for it. But I happen to know that statistics, reliably and continuously, show Americans are for defensive wars, against nation-building, and iffy about humanitarianism... Clinton used this information in deciding how to handle Bosnia- that's why we used airstrikes and stayed out of the nation-building... I'm not fond of Clinton's motivations there (totally political) and I view them as a black mark on an otherwise good job as president... but at least he was fully honest with what he was doing there.
The Bush administration knows that the American people don't like nation-building and have a limited tolerance for humanitarian use of the military... so they framed the war as defense, hyped up the intelligence on it. I don't know if this was planned or simply group-think at work, but it's what happened.
They sold a democracy-spreading mission as a mission for immediate defense. And then... they planned it as such instead of as a democracy-spreading, nation-building exercise. So it was poorly carried out and they're only now beginning to figure things out. But here's the worst part: The American people never asked for this. They wanted a defensive war and an exit. The neo-cons expected that people would just be okay with staying until the mission was complete... when they were never up for the whole mission to begin with.
Even if Iraq is stabilized before the people finally force an end to the war, this will undermine democracy spreading and possibly internationalism itself for a long time. There is already a backlash of isolationist-protectionist Democrats and paleo-conservative Republicans... and the people are angry.
In addition we have alienated many of our allies and not done much of anything about countries with problems we really need to worry about (North Korea and Iran, the stronger rogue states (if you believe containment will work in this case); Mexico's growing instability which affects our economy and immigration troubles; most importantly, China... our growing rival that's making a monkey of us)

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I completely and whole heartedly agree. Had we not attacked Iraq, we could have been the worlds leader again, not their red headed step child.

The foundation for going to war was the fact the there were WMDs.
Go back and find Bush's speeches before the war started.
Go back and listen to Colin Powell's address to the UN council.
A "Stepping stone to Al Qaeda?"
There is no proof even now that there was any link to Al Qaeda.
Saddam was king of his country and did not allow terrorist camps in Iraq.
Why should Saddam been enthusiastic to help the USA stop terrorism?
Why should anyone disprove a 10K thing?
There is simply no proof that there was ever a 10K thing?
How can you disprove something that was never proven to begin with?
The "Haven" was never Iraq. before the war.
There is no proof to support it.
There is plenty of proof the the new haven is Pakistan.
The war in Afghanistan just push the terrorist havens across the border to Pakistan.
Everyone is reporting how terrorists cross that border kill people and then sneak back. Your own military is stating that.
Yes there was proof that Saddam "talked" about having WMDs but that's all it was.
Iran and North Korea have been "talking" about WMDs long before Saddam ever did.
The difference is that Bush said that Saddam had them or at the very least had all the means to put them together.
Bush stated that Saddam was an immediate threat without proof.
He used the excuse that Saddam kept moving and hiding them.
How long has this war been going on?
Still nothing has been found.
"Gut instinct" without proof?
Are you for real?
What are your gut instincts about Iran?
Saddam was once an alley of the US while Iran has always been a threat.
Take a long hard real look at the Iraq war.
Bush knew that Iraq was divided into 3 separate group of people that hated each other.
There was no proof that terrorist were using Iraq as a haven.
Bush went in on his own. He did not care if the rest of the world agreed or disagreed.
This was His war from the start.
He is still lying and covering his butt.
He said Bin Laden was "public enemy #1" after 911.
Now look at what his says about Bin Laden?
Look at his plan for Iraq.
He has no solid plan to judge victory or defeat.
He avoids simply questions from reporters.
He uses vague statements like "When the Iraqi people can defend themselves"
What does that mean?
How can you judge that?
He said Iraq would be more stable after the election.
He said Iraq would be more stable after this, this and this happened.
When they didn't happen he threw another thing that was suppose to happen.
Now he is saying another handful of troops will make it more stable.
Look at the side of Iraq.
Do you honestly believe 2500 more troops will make a difference?
Over 3,000 have died.
Bush can not even come up with a plan to secure a small "Green Zone."
How can he expect to stable an entire country.
Is that enough reasons to satisfy you why people hate him?

Libs and Dems have hated George W. Bush since before the day he was sworn in as president on January 19, 2001. They still in their heart-of-hearts believe he "stole" the election from them. This, despite the fact that he's won another election hands down since then.

Remember in early 2001 when Bush was "poisioning" our water because he dared to reverse some of Clinton's last hour executive orders??? Remember when he was putting arsenic in our water? Remember when the Republicans in that slim majority brokered a sharing deal with Democrats early in 2001.....but when Jumping Jim Jeffords handed the DEMS the same slim majority, they vowed to make it their mission to block or stall Bush's nominees? Because of it.....remember how we didnt' have an FBI Director until a week before 9/11? This hate for Bush has been going on for a long, long time.

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

You can tell a person's political orientation from the reason one hates Bush. Democrats usually hate Bush because of the Iraq war. Republicans or Conservatives, like me, usually hate him for his social liberalism. I feel that he is the one single person most responsible for the illegal alien tsunami that has overwhelmed this country during his administration. So I hate Bush for:

His lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws vs his sham enforcement.

Blatant Hispandering.

Refusal to secure the border.

Cronyism over competency leading to appointing Bush stooges to all the government head offices thereby packing the government with people who share his ideology. He has totally politicized the federal government.

Signing statements telling his heads of government bureaus what parts of a law they are to enforce and what parts to ignore.

Trying to merge Mexico with the US for his North American Union goal.

He's not a nice person. He's a bully who uses bully tactics.

So yes, I do hate this dry drunk SOB.

Like one of his former WH aides, O'Neil, said, 'he's like a blind man in a roomfull of deaf people. There is a serious disconnect.

I consider him to be a traitor.