Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Y'know, it's great that Bush went and had himself a cry in the rose garden, but the fact of the matter is that the White House didn't bother planning for a worse case scenario, they just said "Oh, we'll be greeted as liberators and everything will be fine." The hubris demonstrated by the Bush Administration is DIRECTLY responsbile for a vast majority of American, British, and Allied troop deaths following the invasion (if not EVERY SINGLY DEATH), not to mention the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives in fighting between troops and insurgents. This isn't a case of, "Oh, I'm at the bank and I forgot to bring my deposit slip, so I'll go back home and get it." This is, "Oh, I couldn't be bothered to plan for worse-case scenarios and sixteen hundred plus American troops are dead."

I'm sorry, but saying, "he had a cry, therefore he's a good man" doesn't mean "he rushed into things without planning properly, and now he needs to be held accountable" isn't equally true.

If Bill Clinton had done this, you'd be screaming for his head.

Oh - this isn't about Bush being a good or a bad person. I'd rather drink a beer with him than Al Gore, certainly. This is about Bush as a leader, and as the situation in Iraq has proven, his lack of leadership -- whether deliberate or through carelessness -- has gotten an exceedingly large number of people killed. And that is *absolutely* inexcuseable.

What always amuses me is the supernatural ability of applying knowledge or at least perceived knowledge of today, to yesterday which is all your argument is doing. The ability to adapt and overcome in any situation is an intrinsic value in our military and this is exactly what they are doing.

I also find it amusing that anyone outside of the privilege and responsibility of actually making these decisions can criticize so harshly the decisions made with such a small piece of the puzzle at their disposal. No matter who is in the White House, they have the ability to view, analyze and disseminate information of their choosing. That is part of the responsibility of their office.

If you fail to see that the responsibility for the deaths of so many are directly attributable to the culture of terrorism that has been allowed to cultivate is the Middle East for so long and the individual actions of so many who wish that culture to continue to grow, then it doesn’t much matter whether you think Bush is a good or a bad person. Or that you perceive his lack of leadership to be “absolutely inexcusable”. Because fortunately, for the country and the world at-large, you are not in the position to make the decisions necessary for us to win the War on Terror.

"What always amuses me is the supernatural ability of applying knowledge or at least perceived knowledge of today, to yesterday which is all your argument is doing."

Hmmm. Let's see. Because Bush went and had himself a cry in the rose garden, that excuses the lack of planning for the War in Iraq? The war he rushed us into? Listen, just because you're all "Woohoo! War! I'm going to wave my flag and be patriotic and support it!" doesn't mean that everyone thought the invasion was the right course of action two and a half years ago, nor does it mean everyone thought the administration was being entirely truthful with the American people about the reasons and planning behind the invasion. And now we're finding out that THEY WERE BEING DOWNRIGHT DECEITFUL -- and since a few of us have posted about wanting to see him impeached -- you post some fluff piece about, "Oh, look, Bush cried because he put troops in harm's way, so forgive him." Yeah, great. Y'know, I think every single President has at some point or another had to give an order which led to the deaths of American servicemen. Let me give you such an example - when the US prepared to invade France, do you know what the military strategists planned for? They planned for a scenario where the French would actively resist Allied liberating forces in union with their German occupiers. US military planners in World War II planned for the worst case scenario -- and got the best. As opposed to the Bush administration, which planned for the best, didn't bother thinking about any other scenario ... and instead of getting the best, they got the worst.

How many dead Americans? Seventeen hundred, last I heard. How many of those dead Americans would have lived if the Bush Administration had actually sat down and thought about the plans for Iraq after the invasion? Probably quite a few.

Y'know, a few months ago, you posted about going to the funeral of a soldier from Maryland who was killed in Iraq. Y'know what pains me about that? That you support the man whose lack of leadership responsibility quite likely created the situation where he was killed. I mean, hey, if you can live with yourself ...

Bush is, I'm sure, a nice guy to hang with at a BBQ. As a President, his incompetence is damn near criminal. His advisors should be fired, and he should be impeached and tried in the Senate. It'll never happen, though, impeachement is only for Democrats who lie about blowjobs, not for Republicans who kill American troops.

You like arguing from a point that will put words into my mouth, belittles the President, presupposes your knowledge of all information and its accuracy, and rips history right out of its proper prospective. So be it. We are all entitled to our own view, no matter how flawed, and generally there is little that can be done to sway strong opinions in one direction or another.

The reason for using the example of President Bush’s tearful episode after giving the order was not to show contrition. It shows his humanity and his deep love for the troops and his country. This is exactly what people who argue from your point of view fail to see and I was simply bringing it to light.

If you choose to see a 12 year build up as a rush to war, if you fail to see the connections of the terrorist networks operating in Iraq and the entire world saying they had WMD as deceitful and if you generally aren’t concerned with the millions of people this dictator had killed. So be it. Since you were compelled to give me a history lesson, let me share this stark contrast with you. Approximately 1,500 US troops died on D-Day while on average over the last 2 1/3 years, 2 US troops have died a day. I’m afraid your comparison holds as much water as Senator Kennedy’s quagmire (which for our purposes here means it doesn’t add up).

The unfortunate reality for you is that our troops believe in the mission, they support their Commander in Chief and their families support their sons and daughters. The family of that fallen soldier supported their son; they supported what we are doing in Iraq. Do not continue to make the same mistake of presupposing your knowledge of all the facts. You hit these families over the head with your viral rhetoric and then claim to be serving their greater good. Sad indeed. As I said before, fortunately you are not in the position to make the decisions necessary to win the War on Terror.

It isn't your point of view that is flawed, Jeff, it's your information. But that's what happens when you get lied to - you have flawed information.

It's sad to me that you don't understand the differences between the invasion of Iraq and the war to liberate Europe. How many days did it take from when Bush ordered the mission for the troops to arrive in Baghdad? How many days -- months -- from when the first Allied troops landed in Normandy, did it take them to arrive in Berlin? Oh, right, the Soviets got there first because they were facing a first-rate military which had overrun damn near all of Europe. The fact that you can't understand the differences between that campaign, and this one, is amazing. The fact that you seem to think its perfectly okay for our President to not plan for what we'd do after the invasion, is equally amazing. Here's a quote: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." Know who said it? At the time, Gov. George W. Bush regarding U.S. operations in Kosovo. Why did he say it? I don't know, either, because the Bush Administration always brushed around the subject of what would happen "after" the invasion. And that's sad, Jeff, because the most important part of invading a country is what you do with it after you invade it.

You have, I trust, heard of the Marshall Plan? Do you ever wonder what would have happened had that plan been put into effect to rebuild Germany after the first world war? It's quite possible we wouldn't have had a second world war. But in the rush to punish our enemies, we gave rise to probably the greatest evil this world has ever known - Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party and the destruction they unleashed. The reason Germany never got a chance to start another world war (or at least, open their checkbooks so others could) is because there was a plan to rebuild the country after the invasion.

But our current President could care less about after the invasion. Everything would turn out peachy keen, they assured us, We'd be welcome with open arms. To a point, that's true. On the other hand, every time an insurgent kills another servicemen, you have to ask yourself, "Was it possible that this continued resistence could have been avoided?"

I believe it could have been, Jeff. With more troops on the ground, for one. With less time planning the invasion, and more time spent planning the reconstruction. However, you continue to compare this war with the War on Terror. Sorry, Jeff, but it's the cold hard truth -- there were no connections between Iraq and Al Queda, and Iraq played no role in the September 11th attacks. I realize this must be bitter for you -- oh, don't worry, I'd imagine you're putting your hand over your eyes and mumbling to yourself, "No, it's not true, I don't believe you! Die! Die!" -- but it is, in fact, the truth.

Here's another truth - there are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before the invasion.

President Bush lied. His administration failed to properly plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, and many -- too many, I'd say -- servicemen and women have been killed as a result. If he was to bring "responsibility" back to the White House, its time he showed it and accept some for his role in those deaths. Meanwhile, you continue to do what you do and cheer as Americans are killed in this ill-planned and poorly-executed operation. I find it appaling of what you accuse me of, when you support the man whose arrogance led to this situation, and to those troops' deaths. You're the worst kind of sycophant, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but more importantly - you should be ashamed of the actions of those you support.

History will judge President George W. Bush in his actions leading up to and during the War in Iraq, and like Johnson with Vietnam, it will not be kind in its appraisal of him.

Let’s recap shall we, “Bush Lied – People Died. Jeff is a sycophant.” Now that’s a much more efficient use of words, time and space. It is obvious that I find your version of the truth to be severely lacking any logical cohesiveness because of the groundlessness of it all and vice versa I would imagine. But then, I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

Thank you for showing the depths of your convictions and holding tight to them. In the end this has done more to buttress my original point. Fear drives us to grip tighter to our beliefs, while hope offers opportunities for growth. It is the fear of being wrong, the fear of being attacked again, the fear of being powerless that drives us to hold onto these convictions. Ultimately it is that fear that divides and cripples us from within, and hope offers a different message altogether.

I hope you have found this opportunity to vent helpful, but there is no desire in my heart to continue to degrade this conversation towards the depths of deaniac rhetoric. We are exceedingly fortunate that there are better men than you or me leading this country.