No - we are not "winning"

I couldn't have said it better myself.... (But I'll still say something anyway!)

Indeed, GHWB was a good president (too bad he didn't win his re-election), while the son GWB is a very bad president who doesn't have the mental capacity to deal with complex decisions of life and death.

 

Fine, it's lame. But you claimed that his "argument is predicated on the fact that since we have not had another domestic incident we are not winning the war on terror."

That is simply not what he said. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He said that whether or not we have been attacked has nothing to do with whether or not we are winning the war.

You might disagree with this. But it's ridiculous to claim that he is saying the exact opposite of what he actually said.

 

I'll be glad when this stuff is over because the partisans on both sides are just mean. Just because W doesn't speak well does not mean he is not smart. Just because he has a strong faith does not mean he makes choices that are illogical. At the time Iraq was being discussed many were for action else the votes in the congress, senate, and UN would not have been what they were. If everything would have went perfect these same hypocritical people would have claimed they were all for it, but since it has been a real hard undertaking the Monday morning quaterbacks are everywhere. It is always easy to second guess and criticize, but very difficult to lead. I think W made the best decisions he could with the information available to him at the time. He sure did not go into this lightly. Saddam is the one that would not abide by the rules he agreed to abide by, but no one wants to blame him for the war do you?

I can't seem to understand why the left and right want to always make the other side out to be almost evil. The world is not going to end because either Bush or Kerry is elected. How can politics get people this angry. In reality all politicians pander, and mainly look out for themselves.

 

Explain to me, if you can, the logic of using unproven (and unprovable) stories from ancient religious texts to reach decisions? I think this is what is called "faith"?

So if using strong faith as a basis for decision making is not illogical, how then is it to be seen as logical? In my frame of reference, logic means building one argument upon the incontrovertible evidence of another.

 

I did not criticize the President personally; I have not made fun of his speaking style, I have never attacked his Christian faith as such, (though I do consider his "faith based" decision to attack Iraq to be frightening and more than slightly creepy).

My attacks on the President are the only legitimate ones, as far as I am concerned; he has shown by his actions that he is incompetent to lead.

He has also engaged in a pattern of deception regarding the War in Iraq and other issues in his administration to the extent that I do not feel that I can trust him.

He has demonstrated a dedication to the cause of the wealthy and powerful that is contrary to my idea of a healthy, democratic society.

He needs to be fired.

 

I usually stay out of the political discussions, but one shouldn't dismiss strife in Eastern Europe out of hand. Remember, Serbia was where a little dustup called World War I began.