I don't understand something...Maybe you liberals can help me!? Republicans, feel free to give your opinion!
I don't understand why so many people can hate Bush for the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism, when he's trying to stop those who have been attacking not only there own people, but the whole world. Maybe I'm just misinformed but it seems that you hate the man who is trying to stop those responsible for 9/11, eliminate terrorism, and liberate countries who have been under dictator rule for several years. And don't tell me we're over there for oil, because gas prices are just as high as ever, and don't even think about mentioning weapons because chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Oh and don't say, "Think about the families of the soldiers who haven't seen there loved ones in months!!" I have a brother over there right now, and I couldn't be more proud that he's over there helping do something no liberals could do. So yeah, please help me to understand why you guys think the war in the middle east is a bad thing because clearly I don't understand what you people are thinking.
Mrs. Bass2007-01-26T18:06:06Z
Favorite Answer
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and they weren't tied to Al Qaeda. Why the hell did we go there in the first place and why did we go with no plan to secure the country?
If the country would have been secured the the way it should have been after the war was won, then we wouldn't give two hoots about Iraq, because there wouldn't be a civil war brewing. And our men and women would have been out of there years ago.
Incompetence that leads to the needless death of our soldiers is why I dislike Bush.
When he is trying to stop those who have been attacking not only their own people but the whole world????? I think you are even more misinformed than you realize!!! First, the evidence has become overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside Job!!! If you look at films like Loose Change 2nd Edition, and Info Wars, and Prison Planet, and The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, and many others that you can watch for free on Google Video, you will hopefully be able to understand what our government is actually capable of doing, and what their motives are!! It is time to Wake Up!! Stop listening to mainstream media, which is owned and controlled by the same people!!! Mainstream media simply cannot be trusted!!!
1. Us going over there was all based on lies passed on to the congress and the American people. 2. If he is looking to get those responsible for 9/11, then why in the heck is he in Iraq? It has been proven that Iraq has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. 3. Why are we getting our brave men and women killed for an ideal that WE care more about than they do? 4. If he wanted to go into Iraq and do things right, then it should have been the military men running the war in the first place. Funny how the politicians ran the war in the beginning, and then when they failed, they cry to the military - who by the way, overwhelmingly has come out that they were against going into Iraq in the first place (I cite Colin Powell being ousted because he didn't agree with the ideal of a war in Iraq - I am willing to follow the advice of a General as opposed to some guy in a suit that signs bills and campaigns for his job. . .). It wasn't done right in the first place.
Those are just a few of the reasons that I don't like the guy in the Oval Office right now. He rode the deaths of over 3,000 Americans to further his own agenda - NOTHING MORE. It wouldn't matter to me if a Democrat, Republican, or Mother Theresa did that - I would not approve or back them. It is just sick, and George Bush did it. I have to wonder how anyone can defend a person that is low enough to do such a thing. . .
People are angry because Iraq has very little to do with al qaeda. Bush even said himself that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. He said he was positive there were WMDs but none were found. Yes Hussain was a horrible dictator but the world has much more horrible dictators. We should be concentrating on terrorist organizations such as hezbola and al quaeda and using more intelligence instead of brute force. He has created a situation where we are less able to focus on terrorism because we are worried about an entire middle eastern country in disarray. We are now more vulnerable than ever. This is why even most of the other republicans are losing faith and trust in him.
As a member of the Democratic Party, I understand a lot of the vocal objection is from Democrats and liberals who don't trust Bush. They see him as associated with his father and their ties to corporate oil interests. The same way Republicans and Bush defenders "deny" any proven connection between Cheney/Bush and oil interests, their opposing counterparts "deny" any proven connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 terrorists. So the two sides deadlock. They cannot even hear each other because they already assume the other side is lying and is just arguing for the sake of political opposition and gain.
The TRUE progressive peacemakers do not HATE anyone. I count myself in this camp. I support both the military intervening to provide security while also equal resources are invested in civilian rebuilding efforts. I don't see the situation as "either/or" but "all the above" -- we need both military protection while also emphasizing civilian relief and support. So I think if Democrats/liberals are truly opposed to war, they should support the effort to rebuild and stabilize even more. The problem again is that the issue has become "polarized" where the sides do not trust each other. So they compete and try to defeat the other, which I think makes both fail at their goals.
Colin Powell spoke out publicly about the need for political advocates to focus on common ground so that more could be achieved effectively, rather than let differences divide and conquer our best efforts. George McGovern also issued a statement about increasing resources and reconstruction in Iraq through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I would support Powell and McGovern, and people from both major parties, in working together to make sure all support is invested fully in the areas of concern, instead of playing a no-win tug-of-war for the sake of political posturing. Why not agree that both sides are right, and then both invest in the areas that need help -- both the military for security and the civilian efforts and diplomacy for stability. Why are these two areas painted as opposites, except for exploiting political conflict?