Your standards are too high. How could any of us common liberals ever hope to have the courage to take up arms like a Dick "fly me to my $3%$#ing bunker" Cheney, Limbo, Hyde, Armey, DeLay, or Gingrich. If the idea is Woodrow Wilson II, make the world safe for democracy, then indeed show some courage, tell the citizens that's exactly what you want to do, and let them decide whether they agree with that world view.
It is the truth that Bush and his mouthpieces said that ridding Iraq of Hussein and installing a Democratic, representative government in its place would make the Middle East a more secure area. But, anyone who thinks that this idea has failed because we haven't seen the area become more secure in 6 or 7 months post invasion/regime change is just absolutely ignorant. This change, this increase in overall security in this area of the world doesn't happen overnight. It won't happen in one year. America itself declared itself indepedent in 1776. It didn't ratify its own Constitution until 1789, and only then after it rewrote the original Articles of Confederation. By 1860, a mere 84 years later, it was at war with itself again. The greatest civilization in our planet's history has only been around in its current edition for at most 215 years, at least 125(If you count the end of Reconstruction as the true birth of the "unbreakable Union" theory). In the long-term, we're really rather young as Civilizations go. How can anyone say that since it took us two times to get it right with our own Constitution (The Articles of Confederation were our first try), and that we didn't rewrite it all till 1789 (13 years), that after 6-7 months, the situation in Iraq is a failure from a security standpoint? The only people who can say that seem to be Liberals and Democrats. Those people would be incorrect. Those people would be short-sighted. Those people would be pessimists in the face of anyone's decision that is not their own. Ready to cut bait and admit failure and assign blame after a ridiculously short period of time. Anyone with half a brain, any sense of context, as well as any sense relative to the history of such situations would never be so ridiculously asinine as to say that after only such a short amount of time, we have failed in our objectives. CB66, you are that anyone. How does it feel?
The speech was more geared toward us more so than the Middle East. However, the main idea of his speech speaks volumes of how our neighbors and past president have ignored the crisis in the Middle East.
You're losing it JD. T thought it was lvoe child, roach, sticky dan, and gunkrich Invading SD might not stop terrorism but it might get rid of Daschhole.
Anyone with half a brain, any sense of context, as well as any sense relative to the history of such situations would never be so ridiculously asinine as to say that after only such a short amount of time, we have failed in our objectives. CB66, you are that anyone. How does it feel? [/B][/QUOTE] Anyone with half a brain knows that we did not invade Iraq because it was a threat to us or anyone else, or because a bunch of right wing idiots in the White House cared one iota about the Iraqi people and whatever suffering they were enduring. Since apparently you have bought into every lie and every piece of propaganda that Bush has spoken, how does it feel to be a complete idiot?
And I would consider listening to you if you were just a slight bit informed of the facts. The Bushies did claim that taking out Saddam was crucial to bringing peace to the Middle East. Either you are a liar, or just ignorant, or just a shill for right wing trash. At any rate, you can be ignored in the future as just another right winger who knows nothing.
