i especially agree with shadeauxcaster about tony blair. he has been a better friend to us than i thought anyone could be.

you guys are right on.

Good post Shadeauxcaster. I truly believe that most liberals will agree with you as well, however they feel that it's more important to attend to matters at home first and spend less money on national defense (or aggression as some would call it). Bush sees the big picture and realizes that in order to maintain our way of life you have to put down threats to our safety. I am thankful for Bush's foresight and leadership.

Don't forget "I did not have sex with that woman." or "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

Great post Shadeauxcaster. You addressed it as a reply to Cotton&NosePickingButthead'666 so he will now call you a "right wing idiot David Duke supporter" The rest of us realize that the only way peace will ever be achieved is though superior firepower.

There have been some great presidents in the history of America. How historians rate the presidency of George W. Bush will depend upon the viewpoints of the historians. In my lifetime Kennedy will be rated as great for forcing the Soviet Union to remove their missiles from Cuba and for creating the program that sent the first man to the moon. Johnson got us deeply involved in a war in Viet Nam that they never tried to win. Nixon ended that war and established diplomatic relations with China but he will be remembered most for Watergate. Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter? What can you say except for mediocre? Ronald Reagan brought about the end of the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communism. The first President Bush could have finished off Saddam in Iraq but his huge mistake was not following through with it. He also backed out of his campaign promise of "Read my lips, No new taxes" and signed a Democrat passed tax bill. Clinton presided over a period of a booming economy. Not that he or any other president has the ability to controll the economy but he was the beneficiary of economic policies put into motion by Reagan and Bush I that came to fruition during Clinton's years in office. If Clinton had avoided scandals and impeachment proceedings and had taken out Osama Bin Laden when Osama's head was offered to him on a plate by Suddan he would be regarded a lot higher by future historians than he is likely to be.

Where will George W. Bush be ranked by future historians? He rose to greatness with the way he handled the 9-11 situation. For those of us who were glued to the news networks during the aftermath of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor I for one was encouraged by his handling of it and lifted from the dispair of watching the tapes of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers and the buildings collapsing and the tapes of trapped victims leaping to their deaths from the doomed buildings because GWB took control of it and soothed the collective shock of all of us. He is the first president ever to tell it like he sees it and follow through with action. Not idle bluffs but to put it into plain language and stand up to our back stabbing so callled allies and say "You are either for us or against us." And then back up his words with action. No, we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden. If he is still alive he is hiding in a cave somewhere. Unlike Saddam he is used to living like that. Like Saddam was he is the object of a world wide manhunt by the Special Forces operatives of the Armed Forces of the United States and our allies, especially the elite commmando troops of the UK. Maybe Osama is already dead. Maybe not. Either way Al Quida hasn't been able to pull off another terrorist action in the USA. We have many people to thank for this, the men and women of the American armed forces and our true allies but most of all to George W. Bush for having the courage to stand up to not only our enemies but also to our so called allies and do exactly what he told the rest of the world that he would do.

Other presidents have risen to greatness at times of crisis in American History. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy. Put the name George W. Bush in that category.

What he said!

Hooray and big whoopdedoo. We crushed Iraq and caught Saddam in a hole. I have said before, and will say again, this is not a moral victory. This is about control of oil, but only the future will tell. Maybe GW will go after other tyrants, but until he does, this remains NOT about WMD, or "Saddam", but about OIL and controlling the oilfields.

I do not plan on bandwagoning for anybody. I am not a fair weather fan...in football, or politics. I suppose a "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is" is just as bad as "I do not recall"? Some people are very short-sighted and have selective memory recall. They can remember all the bad things one did, yet completely forget Iran/Contra and give no credit where it is due, or to give undue credit where it isn't deserved. To say "Ronald Reagan brought about the end of the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communism." The truth be known, the Soviet economy brought about the end of the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communism. They just couldn't afford to keep up with the US. Reagan just happened to be in office whenever it happened.

Now, this being said, I have no problems with GW on a personal level. He seems to have his heart in the right place....it's his head that I'm worried about. Historically, Republicans in office have tended to pass legislation that is beneficial to big business and detremental to the working man, small business, and the poor. What was wrong with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act? Who doesn't want these things? Reason for repealing: They were expensive to big business. Also, there are other legislations that have passed that are taking away our civil liberties. Where is the ACLU now? Being able to detain someone who is deemed a "terrorist" for an unlimitied amount of time without the ability to seek counsel is UNAMERICAN. WE DON'T DO SHIT LIKE THAT. THIS IS WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD and is one reason why this is the greatest country on earth.

Sorry about the rant. I had some crap to get off of my chest. There's more, but I will save for a later day...

I agree this is an occasion for a hooray and big whoopdedoo. Iraq was, by far, the strongest military in the region and Sadaam was widely viewed there as the ONE that could be looked upon to lead opposition to our country's interests there. The truth apparently is that, while there are undoubtedly some caches of poison gas etc hidden away, Saddam chose to follow a path of cultivating a BELIEF in his neighbors and the West that he had more grandiose weapons than he in fact possessed. This turned out to be a very, very, foolish policy for him. Now the question is, did his foolish policy result in a boon and Big Whoopdedoo for our country.

This is indeed not a moral victory. It is about as concrete and physical victory as can be had. In the only region of the world harboring a significant movement obsessing upon our demise, we have swept away the Big Dog's military like it was a gnat. Then the "Lion of Baghdad" is snatched up out of a hole in the ground and shown to be a coward. Does this encourage Syria to rattle it's sword. Hardly. Does this lend aid and comfort to those who would seek assistance in doing us ill? Hardly. How about Iran, have the developments aided radicals there lead that country into a confrontation with the US? We now have an Army on both their Eastern and Western borders, and a live demonstration of the abilities of those forces fresh in their minds. Nay, they are more interested in talking.

Is this about America taking Iraq's Oil? Were our armies sent in to take possession of oilfields for our own use? To adopt this position, one must abandon all facts and choose hot button rhetoric instead. Iraq's customers for its Oil have historically been Europe and Russia. There is of course some Global market input but the US has not in the past been a significant purchaser of Iraqi Oil, nor is it likely to be in the future. What has been removed is a threat to our Oil trading partners, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, etc. The Invasion of Kuwait, had it not been repulsed, would have been followed with similiar pretextual invasions of these other countries, and by now our economy would be choking down to the point that maintaining our level of industry and technology woud be impossible. To contend that the only thing involved in this matter is greed for Iraq's Oil is simplistic in the extreme. We could have just bought the damned stuff for a tenth of the cost if that is what we wanted.

Regardless of the sour grapes being spit out here by those who apparently would have preferred that we had failed, and who would attribute very base motivations to our own country, the facts are clear that the threat to our interests from this part of the world are HUGELY reduced. Remember that the desire to do us ill already existed. The ability to prepare to act on that ill will has now been neutered, both in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the surrounding countries as well.

Seems to me congratulations on a job well done are in Order for our Troops and Leaders. I bet no one else over there will smugly wink and nod about WMD. I noticed that our friend Mohomar Khadafi fessed up just this week and said "Come On In" to inspect Libya. Fact is, I havent heard many leaders justifying stuff like 9-11 like was so popular right after it happened. Methinks "Shock and Awe" zipped their lips. I think this is good that leaders of other countries feel that perhaps they should not publicly justify the murder of thousands of Americans. Do You?

If you do, then thank President Bush instead of calling him a liar for giving Saddam Hussein what he clearly asked for in his miscalculation that our country was comprised of cowards and weaklings who would not call his bluff.

So, Iraq was a military juggernaut then? After 11 years on UN sanctions, a previous war that seriously diminished their fighting capability, you still think that Iraq was the regions' strongest military? That is laughable, my friend. The regions strongest military is Israel, bar none. Fact.

I never said we would buy Iraqi oil, did I? Our military is there, why BUY it when it is there for the TAKING? You really think that this isn't about oil? Right. Then why aren't we kicking dictators out in our own hemisphere? Because there isn't any oil in those places. Plain and simple.

Bush is a liar. Plain and simple. He lied about the reasons for going into Iraq in the first place and is using fear to get legislation passed that is TAKING AWAY OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. Is the world a safer place by the US overthrowing the Iraqi government? Probably...but only the future will tell. The deciding factor in determining if this was succesful will be AFTER we LEAVE Iraq and what happens then. We will not be there forever...just remember that. I do not support any action that sees the US take on the role of bully. We're big, we're bad, so better do as we say or else we'll invade your country, too? What ever happened to a country's right to choose for themselves? Have we forgotten that OUR country was founded on the belief that WE have the RIGHT to self-determination and WE went to war because some foreign power was basically bullying us? I do not think that I wished the US to fail, I just believe in using BRAINS over BRAWN. Reminds me of a bully picking on a weak kid in a schoolyard....or Marty the Bookie's "muscle" collecting on a debt.

Please reply....I'm enjoying the debate....

you dont need to be a juggernaut to kill people by the thousands. if you are the kinda guy who encourages terrorists, which saddam is, you can kill lots of people really fast.

right, like iraq was. they were the bully. they were the expansionist. they invaded kuwait. they murdered plenty of innocent kuwaitis. now if you like that, then by all means you should let them do it. but if you hate bullies you stand up and go beat up the bully and tell em they no longer have normal rights. in fact you should probably destroy the bully so he can never bully again. but if you are really nice you say to the bully "here is a list of things, if you do all of them and always behave, then we wont destroy you". thats what we did in 1991. but iraq is a bad bully, they dont listen, they wont abide by the rules. so then, unless we are idiots, we have to crush them, or then why should anyone ever listen to us?

sure, its fun and happy and simplistic to say "war is bad, no war". but its not very smart, when there are bullies in the world who invade and murder their neighbors.

manuel noriega.

and if the war is about oil, then why does the UK go along with it? they are a net exporter of oil.

yeah, except in this case the "weak kid" loves torture and hosts rape parties. what a sweet kid. dont want to "bully" the "weak kid" right?

True, it doesn't take a military juggernaut to kill thousands. Hell, corporations can do that...remember Bhopal, India? Accidents and Mother Nature can kill thousands, too. You don't see us going to war against them, do you? (just kidding. I do know the difference....but it is funny...)

Manuel Noriega? you mean from the Regan/Bush, Sr. Administrations? The same Noriega that was on the CIA's payroll? That guy? I'm amazed you brought him up. No....no oil in Panama...just a bunch of drugs, which is another 'money' topic altogether. War on Drugs. What a laugh. If they really wanted to win this "war", they'd legalize it and take all of the money out of it. (See: Prohibition, 1920's) Note: I did NOT say legalize and let it go uninhibited or unrestricted!

Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. This is 2003. We already went there and did that. Remember Desert Storm? Bush, Sr. didn't finish the job. We already had the troops and equipment in place, but he thought Saddam would gas our troops, so he didn't invade Bagdhad when he had the chance. I just don't know if this invasion is worth the lives and taxpayer dollars it takes/has taken to do it....unless, of course, there is some profitable reason, i.e., oil and jobs, which nothing that has been said contradicts or makes me believe otherwise in to as what this was all about....OIL. And if you want to cite Saddam's seemingly blasier attitude towards the UN resolutions, are we going to go to war against every nation that doesn't abide by UN resolutions? Who is next...Israel??? WMD? If Saddam had them, why did he not use them? BS. GW KNEW Saddam had no WMD. He would not risk invasion otherwise....which brings me to this...

It's ok to lie to Congress and the American people to go to war, but it's impeachable to lie about a freaking BLOW JOB? Where are the priorities and exactly WHAT are they? :dis:

We can agree to disagree, because there is nothing that will make me think otherwise.

how about something we can all agree on???

GEAUX TIGERS!!!
Bring home the trophy, boys!