There would be so many things to work on but I guess the 3 that I would do first would be the following:
1. Seal off the Mexican border completely with a wall that would make the Great
Wall of China pale in comparison.
2. Keep fighting the War on Terror with a tenacity that would drive Liberal
Democrats mad with insanity....that wouldn't be hard.
3. Introduce a bill that would ban the practice of Islam in the United States.
(This is not religious bigotry, its about being safe in our country)
These three things didn't make the list but made honorable mention:
1. Direct my Attorney General (Allison) to begin an investigation into the big
oil companies about the high gas prices.
2. Push for oil drilling in the Artic Wildlife Preserve.
3. Have my Secretary of State (Ann Coulter) broker a deal with Iran on their
Nuclear ambitions---either cut it out or we will take out your leaders and
convert your people to Christianity..... after we nuke you.
If you look back to the beginning of the war, you might
July 24 2007, 11:29 AM
remember this admin. had all that support and then some. Although they didn't have mine. They had an opportunity to do this right and passed on it. Now they have made a mess of things and they want to cry wolf against the rest of the country for their mistakes. The problem today is nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions. They want to blame it on their neighbor or the other party. You all need to get a grip and realize this war was started on bad intelligence, that means a mistake. What do you usually do with a mistake? If your smart you try to correct it, not make it worse. When you become so brain washed by politics as to not know the difference in right and wrong, or admit when you made a mistake and try to correct it then you are truly ignorant. I don't know the answer to our war(if I was responsible for it I would want to know that answer ahead of time), but I do think they should be planning on how and when our troops are coming home and how many of them will be permanently stationed in Iraq. Apparently they have no plan. I don't think they had one when we went over there. This is a prime example of politicians who know nothing about fighting a war trying to manage it. The proper thing to do in the beginning would have been to ask your top generals how many troops and weapons they needed to do the job and give it to them. I did not support the war in the beginning. I think we need to support our troops and the idea of how we are going to bring them home in the near future without losing more American lives and our proverbial a$$. We have already stained our reputation in the world community, we now need to work on rebuilding that reputation, such as how Reagan and Carter did. We all need to remember the hijackers who committed the 9/11 attacks were not from Iraq. We also need to remember we have been doing fine without their oil.JMO
Re: If you look back to the beginning of the war, you might
July 24 2007, 1:28 PM
Man did you have to mention Carter in the same sentence as Reagan? Good grief there is no comparision. Jimmy Carter was a wimp then and is an anti-semite wimp now.
Re: If you look back to the beginning of the war, you might
July 25 2007, 10:37 AM
While it may be true that none of the hijackers came from Iraq, the fact remains that they were all Muslim savages practicing an evil religion intent on killing as many of Americans as possible.As for the U.S. reputation in the world, it has never been good with the Islamist idiots and never will be. They hated us long before Bush became President.
It doesn't matter that none of the hijackers came from Iraq. Saddam promoted terrorism without regard to nationality. We were not going after the hijackers because they were already dead. We were going after Saddam and other state sponsors of terrorism. Saddam had to go and all the democrats at the time agreed including Bill and Hillary. Right now it is just a spin to gain a political edge when they act like we should have left Saddam in charge. They sure as heck wasn't saying that in 2003 when he was the most feared dictator in the world.
The only issue that democrats can really argue on the topic with any validity is why haven't we gotten Bin Laden and other top level Al-Queda? That is worth talking about and holds creedence. We have gotten alot of them but there are still many on the loose. I would like to hear George speak in more detail on this subject and what is being done. I feel he is falling short in this area but then again they may not want to divulge alot of that information for fear that al-queda would benefit from it...I don't know.
They may well have not been on board, had they not
July 25 2007, 5:26 PM
been told of all the weapons of mass destruction. We will never know, I do believe the majority of the American people were behind GW in the beginning. That feeling has since passed. That is why I say the opportunity to all out win the war is gone, unless some really good reports come in September. Although I was against the war from the start, I think it could have been won if it had been managed properly from the start. You don't take advice from people who have never done the job. You want a job done right pick someone who is experienced and let them tell you what they need to do the job. It doesn't matter it is the same with anything you do. Building a house? Hire an experienced carpenter. When you put people in charge who have no idea what they are doing then you can guess what the result will be. The only thing fruitful I can see that has come of this is ______, well I can't see anything we have accomplished that we should be bragging about.JMO
Re: If you look back to the beginning of the war, you might
July 25 2007, 10:48 AM
"The problem today is nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions. They want to blame it on their neighbor or the other party."
That's a very true statement. Bush has admitted to mistakes in Iraq and I don't remember him ever promising it would be easy but he has fallen short as far as the general public sentiment is concerned in terms of accepting responsibility for certain failures. I think overall though it pretty much pales in comparison to what the democrats are trying to do though to gain a political advantage. Hillary, John Edwards, John Kerry and many other democrats that voted for the invasion are now trying to deflect blame off themselves 100% by saying it's George Bush's fault or it's George Bush's war. I have lost respect for all of them. They were all on board with this from day 1 when public sentiment was behind it but when things started to sink a little bit they were the first to abandon ship and place blame elsewhere. Joe Biden is the only democratic candidate worthy to be president in my mind because he is the only one that I have heard speak realistically about the whole thing and the only one who acts human and admits to imperfections. If he gets the democratic nomination(bit of a long shot) I will consider voting for him regardless of the republican opponent. I can't say that about any other democratic candidate at this point. The more I listen to Bill Richardson the less I like him.
IMO, Bush had the greatest opportunity to unify us an American President has ever had. Remember how united we were after the attack on 9/11? He could have been a leader and moved this country to be a world leader. But he blew it.
If we had focused our resources on getting Bin Laden, and taken out the heart of Al Qaeda, instead of this ill-advised invasion of Iraq, I believe the outcome would have been different.
We had the whole world on our side when we got hit. What if Bush had gone after the Taliban and Bin Laden with major resources, and crushed them. What if we had rebuilt Afghanistan and restored a government there? Why can't we be an example for other countries, and not selectively invade?
And what if after 9/11 we had resolved as a nation to reduce our use of energy, especially oil-based from foreign sources? People were ready to sacrifice, to meet any challenge.
We are the most unified as a people, and the strongest, when we all recognize a common concern or threat.Now maybe we're being united by bush's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong.
We didnt have the whole world on our side when we got hit. Some countries were celebrating in their streets because we got hit. Thats a big exaggeration saying the whole world was on our side. Yeah I admit some mistakes were made but it is still a far cry from a really big mistake if a Liberal Democrat had been President in this situation. Democrats for some reason just love dictators. That just amazes me. They just ooh and aah over Fidel Castro and they think Hugo Chavez is a pretty good guy despite the fact that he has threatened death to anyone who opposes his government. I am pretty sure there is no doubt that Saddam would still be in power had a Liberal Democrat been in office and school children across the United States would be chanting "Allah is great" before class every morning which I am sure would be ok with the ACLU (a.k.a. the Anti Christian Lawyers Union).
Idiots like John Edwards actually think terrorism doesn't exist and his characterization of the phrase "War on Terror" as a bumper sticker slogan proves that. Democrat leadership has no fight in them. Jimmy Carter proved that. Thats when we really lost respect in the world.
"IMO, Bush had the greatest opportunity to unify us an American President has ever had."
-Liberals do not want to be unified with the rest of America in any sort of offensive against terrorists whether it be Bin Laden, Al Queda, Hamas, the Taliban or anyone else. They want to take the "if we leave them alone they will leave us alone" approach which is laughable.
"If we had focused our resources on getting Bin Laden, and taken out the heart of Al Qaeda, instead of this ill-advised invasion of Iraq, I believe the outcome would have been different."
-You are looking at this as if the offensive against radical Islam has only one front. We are in a position in which we have to defend ourselves against ALL enemies and that includes ALL terrorists organizations and ALL rogue states and dictators who sponsor them. If you narrow the focus of who our enemies are then you lose in the long run anyway. It's more than just Al-Queda. Radical Islam is much more far reaching that just one terrorist organization with all due respect to the dangers they present.
"We had the whole world on our side when we got hit. What if Bush had gone after the Taliban and Bin Laden with major resources, and crushed them. What if we had rebuilt Afghanistan and restored a government there? Why can't we be an example for other countries, and not selectively invade?"
-The whole world? Hardly. There were alot of people around the world and some in our own country that were happy to see what took place on 9/11.
"And what if after 9/11 we had resolved as a nation to reduce our use of energy, especially oil-based from foreign sources? People were ready to sacrifice, to meet any challenge."
-Good thought in theory. I guess hindsight really is 20/20. It's one thing to say people will buy into the idea...it's another to actually make it happen.
"We are the most unified as a people, and the strongest, when we all recognize a common concern or threat.Now maybe we're being united by bush's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong."
-There are alot of things that I disagree with concerning the President's policies both domestic and foreign. His stubborness and persistence in the offensive against Islamic Jihadists is not one of them. He didn't cause us to go to war with Iraq. The blame for that should be clearly and decisively placed on Saddam Hussein. Throw out the democratic and republican thing and throw out the politics of it all and look at it from a pragmatic and unbiased standpoint.
Fact, almost everyone (but you) supported the war against Iraq (1) To drive out a brutal dictator, and (2) He posed a threat with his weapon's of mass destruction.
The liberal media, in all it bias intent has covered up the fact that the WMDs were transported to Syria. That and the liberal presidential candidates have nothing else to bash Bush on, the economy is good, only thing they have to cling to is the war and the debt we've built up to fight it.
Back to the WMD to Syria argument, why isn't this receiving more play in the media? Pure political reason I figure. Here is just one of many articles on it, read it and let me know your opinion.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
Report: Syria hiding Iraqi WMD
Sources say relative of President Assad smuggled arms to 3 places
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 6, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.
The weapons were smuggled in large wooden crates and barrels by Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, known for moving arms into Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions and for sending recruits to fight coalition forces, said the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria.
The party, based in Potomac, Md., regards itself as a secular body comprised of Syrians who want to see the country embrace "real democratic and economic reforms."
One weapons-cache location identified by the sources is a mountain tunnel near the village of al-Baidah in northwest Syria, the report said. The tunnel is known to house a branch of the Assad regime's national security apparatus.
Two other arms supplies are reported to be in west-central Syria. One is hidden at a factory operated by the Syrian Air Force, near the village of Tal Snan, between the cities of Hama and Salmiyeh. The third location is tunnels beneath the small town of Shinshar, which belongs to the 661 battalion of the Syrian Air Force.
The nephew of Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, Assef al-Shaleesh, runs Al Bashair Trading Co., a front for the Assad family involved prior to the war in oil smuggling from Iraq and arms smuggling into the country. Al-Bashair has offices in Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad.
In an exclusive interview yesterday with the London Telegraph, Assad came close to admitting his country possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Assad told the London paper Syria rejects American and British demands for concessions on weapons of mass destruction, insisting Damascus is entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own chemical and biological deterrent.
He said Israel must agree to abandon its undeclared nuclear arsenal in order for Syria to consider any deal with the U.S.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported Al Bashair Trading Co. participated in the smuggling of millions of dollars worth of sophisticated arms and equipment to Saddam Hussein for three years prior to the Iraqi leader's overthrow.
Al Bashair executives met with North Korean firms before the war began, according to the Los Angeles daily. The paper's three-month investigation included the translation of 800 signed contracts found in the Al Bashair Trading Co. office shortly before U.S. troops entered Baghdad.
Just prior to the U.S.-led effort to oust Hussein, SES International Corp. signed at least 50 contracts to supply weapons and gear to Iraq, the Times said, including 1,000 heavy machine guns and up to 20 million rounds for assault rifles.
Not all the weapons were delivered, but some may still be in use by terrorists battling the U.S. occupation forces, the newspaper said.
At least one shipment of arms was completed with the help of the Syrian government in violation of a U.N. arms embargo.
SES International Corp. denied any wrongdoing, while Syria's foreign ministry refused to comment to the Times.
That's been in the news since day 1 frosty but all the liberals want to ignore it. It's like if we don't find them and take a picture then they were never there. That's a ridiculous rationale when you already have the proof that he had used WMD's before. The mass graves are there and there is no disputing it. Then you add to it that Saddam's own secretary of defense stated this very same thing. Then you add to it that he continually defied U.N. sanctions and absolutely would not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
To imply that Saddam did not have biological and chemical weapons capabilities and was not making attempts for nuclear capabilities in the future is just naive in my opinion and sells him way short as far as his brutality, arrogance and brashness is concerned.
Yeah, the folks selling him the weapons wanted him to coninue to defy the U.N.
July 26 2007, 7:23 PM
If we let tyrants do as they wish and ignore U.N. sanctions, then what is the utility of that organization? Oh well, some folks will spin it anyway they want to try and win an election. I guess flip flopping and talking out of both sides of their mouths are the status quo for the current democratic party.
You might want to think a little on the response you
July 27 2007, 11:26 AM
just made to J.H. The truth of the matter will stand when politics are done. The reason for the war in Iraq and the invasion being authorized was for WMD's. Now, can you deny this? The American people didn't choose this path it was chosen for us, through the false intelligence. I am not saying G.W. was aware it was false only that he chose the wrong path. Should any leader be rewarded for leading his people down the wrong path? I wonder what the cost of this has been in human life and money(it was averaging between 3 and 10 billion per month)? Money which could have been used to secure our Nation here at home, and lives lost for false intelligence who were all someone's father, mother, brother or sister. I think any leader who makes a decision to take on a task should try to do it right, whether I agree with it or not. They owe us a good job, especially when they ask the ultimate sacrifice from American families. Remember we are Americans first and every thing else is second, or it should be. My point is take the blinders off and don't be guided by scare tactics and this LINE being drawn for all Christians by the Republican party. It is mostly political spin, and tends to lead us all away from the FACTS. We are not living our lives in a "PEP RALLY" there are serious consequences to our leaders actions.
The problem with that way of thinking LEO is that the Liberal/Secular wing of the Democrat party will never be satisfied with what needs to be done to protect the country. In order to protect our country some of our basic rights will have to be restricted. I believe in the wiretapping of phone calls of those people that could be terrorist but the Democrats get their panties in a wad over that. I believe in racial profiling in our airports and major transportation networks but Democrats oppose that. Heck they dont even want you to report suspicious behavor because it might hurt some idiot Muslims feelings. No matter what we could do in our homeland to make things safer, the Democrats will oppose it because they worry about offending somebody or some race. If it was up to me I think the entire Islamic religion should be banned in the U.S. and all the mosques destroyed. But that would offend some Democrats, so we can't do that. So you see there isnt anything that we the people can do here in the good old U.S. of A. that would be satisfactory to the Democrats. With them its damn if you do and damn if you dont. If W. had done what you are suggesting then the Democrats would be crying about that, complaining that we should be invading, not protecting.
I dont like everything Bush has done. Far from it. But I do believe that we need to stay on the offensive and not wait around for the next attack because its coming and god forbid if we have a Jimmy Carter prospective on things or even if someone like Obama or Hillary is in charge. Allah would be praised wouldn't he.
He had WMDs, he used them in the past, wouldn't let UN inspectors do their job.
July 28 2007, 3:42 PM
Sounds like he was a real threat to the entire stability of the region, consequently the stability of the world. You are convinced that it was wrong to go to war, I am not. You say I need to think, LEO I have thought long and hard on it. I don't pretend to know your level of involvement in this war, nor will I tell you mine. One thing you are correct on, time will be the ultimate judge on the validity of the war. I do suspect, that I'm not the only one wearig blinders. You may need to try to practice what you preach a little and ponder some other points of view. So many options the President had, he chose an aggressive one. I just think that a pull out would totally destroy any credibility we have, and will further encourage the terrorists. The war must be won, and the battles should be in the Mid East, not Manhatten. Our integrity as a nation shouldn't be compromised for the sake of winning votes. And we both know that's the primary motivation of the capitulation talk.
F.M there is a difference in being against going to war and
July 29 2007, 11:11 AM
ones position after going there. I don't believe any American wants to lose the war, and any Republican who says so is a narrow minded, indoctrinated little follower. We are all Americans first. You are an educated person and you know your response that he had WMD's is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the threat of a nuclear attack which was preached to our congress to get them to authorize this endeavor, now I am happy to discuss this with you but don't try to twist the facts, I am not a politician and don't tend to fall for that type of SPIN.
Re: F.M there is a difference in being against going to war and
July 29 2007, 9:52 PM
I won't say that the left wants to lose but not being willing to do what it takes to WIN is not much better. They probably don't want the country as a whole to lose but they want the executive branch's policies to lose. In the end there really isn't much difference. The old sports cliche kinda comes into play: An L is an L.