Here are a few compelling facts for those who think bush never should have started the war in Iraq.

The following is part of an email that I received.

Things that make you think a little:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost...
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But.. It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

I haven't thought about whether or not he's doing a good job for awhile, and I might have changed my stance on it, but do you really have to bring all the forwards you recieve and put them on this board?

Could you explain to me how attacking the godless liberals is relevant to Bush's performance?

Could you explain how 95% of your post is relevant to Bush's performance?
This is why chainmail is so fucking retarded.

a. He led us into WWII against the alliance after we were attacked by that alliance. But that's irrelevant.

b. They were part of the same alliance.

c. Does that make attacking North Korea RIGHT? I'm not a history major, so I don't know what the reason for starting a war with NK was, but if I had to guess it would be to "stop the spread" of communism. So what happened? Last time I checked there was still a North Korea, and it was still communist.

d. and e. You should NEVER use Vietnam as ANY kind of pro-war example.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia because of the "ethnic cleansing" going on there. Ironically, that's often the same reason cited for us starting the war in Iraq after the whole WMD thing fell through.

g. He's also made us one of the most hated countries on earth (opening ourselves up to more terrorist attacks by extremists). And that's all well and good what he's done in other countries, but what has he done for the citizens of the country he leads?

This presidency is to the point where you can't seriously start defending the president, by only defending the war in iraq. Things that bush should've handled...

The deficit (which we're going to have to pay off, the democratic party's aim is also to grow the economy while keeping inflation low also)
Medicare is already bankrupt (unlike social security)
Fema's response to katrina
Prison torture during the war
The president who didn't hold press conferences for a couple of years, now has a liar doing press conferences. No, i really don't think i'll be sorry for saying that.
Honesty and integrity, seriously aren't this president's strong points.

And that is to say nothing of the way this administration sidesteps intelligence officers, scientists and engineers like ourselves. And nothing to say of the things most liberals really care about, like education, and healthcare.

This country does have a history of bringing justice to tyrants and dictators, and that is something I support, but with the support of the UN, especially for war this big, relatively speaking, in the last 30 years. If the war in iraq is really about ousting a dictator, there's a long line of them. Honesty during any such debate would be appreciated. Now that we're there, we have to set a good example by not leaving until iraq is self-governing. Getting rid of the incompetence MUST be a starting point though.

The country is divided for a good reason, and changing things/policy will require changing the way we think.

All this talk of democrats regaining control of the house in 2006... please stop, it's too painful. Go Elliot Spitzer though...

To borrow from The Daily Show, paraphrased, "I commited genocide over the weekend, and today I told myself, lying would be worse." The Daily Show yesterday (Monday) was fucking hilarious... the coverage of riots on French TV was hilarious, the ethics class quiz was hilarious, as was Barak Obama. To borrow some content from it, here's a question...

Which of these is the most credible?
a) your eyes
b) your ears
c) the president

Option d)... i hate chain letters?

You could probably stop reading right there if you were expecting to get some kind of rational logically guided arguement here.

If you actually read further you will find that it is filled with straw-man arguements where even they are based on questionable premises and unbacked assertions.

I'm not going to touch on whether bush is doing a good job or not but if you seriously read this email and thought it was well stated and convincing of anything, you are a fool.

Is it time to elect a new president yet?

More importantly, are the sides actually going to present a candidate that is actually competant enough to operate as president? Bush barely qualifies, Gore would have been a disaster, and Kerry couldn't have been doing better than Bush is right now. This country needs someone that can actually lead a nation, and do it well.

Damn, even the right-leaning folks are bashing this thread. That's when you KNOW you suck at life.

Bush is a traitor. Only Kerry could have done a worse job.

Bush has erased the last vestiges of many of our freedoms. He has made it common practice to arrest and detain american citizens indefinitely, with no trial, no charges, and no habeus corpus. He has given the FBI and law enforcement unlimited power to spy on american citizens with no warrants needed, and made it a federal crime to tell anyone that the FBI wants a wire tap or a list of the library books someone has checked out, or to monitor someones internet activity, and a federal crime to challenge those unconstitutional warrantless searches in court. Bush has expanded unconstitutional federal powers more than any other president.

Do I agree with the war in Iraq? Yes, that guy had to go. But one good deed in another country doesn't change the fact that human rights abuses are going on right here in our own country under the guise of "counter-terrorism."

Do you really have the freedom of speech? Could you stand up on campus, or on a street corner, or on TV or a newspaper, and say "Bush should be hanged for treason" without the FBI showing up at your door (or you just disappearing)? You really think you've got freedom of speech? Try saying just that. Are you afraid to say it? I thought so.

Do you really have the freedom to peacably assemble? Try to form a politically un-correct demonstration (say, against gay rights) in a city, any city, without a permit to demonstrate. Yes, you need a permit in most cities to peacably assemble... and good luck getting a permit to peaceably assemble for such an un-PC cause.

And good luck petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. If you're lucky, a judge will just tell you that the government refuses to hear your case - if you're not lucky, the ATF will kick down your door and confiscate any metal tubing (or a potato, or a pillow) you have and call it a silencer, or confiscate a shoestring and call it a machine gun, and send you to federal ass-pounding prison. Yes, it happens, and it's not uncommon either. The first amendment is dead and buried

I won't even talk about the second amendment.

Do you really think that you have freedom from unreasonable search and siezure? Do you recall reading the seek thread about how the FBI wants remote on-demand monitoring capabilities for all computers on campus? That's the equivalent of a phone tap without a warrant. And that's what we know of. It's a federal crime to fight or even speak of one of those "National Security Letters." And just recently Bush has authorized the FBI to share what they learn from those letters with private companies. Does that sound like a good idea to you? And you thought the government was doing favors for Halliburton... No more fourth amendment.

We all know of the american citizens detained on american soil without a trial, without charges, and without any due process of law. And we all remember the recent Supreme Court case where they ruled that any city government can take anybody's property to give to a private business just because private businesses are the "public good." There is no more fifth amendment.

Then the tenth amendment - whatever powers not given to the US government by the constitution are reserved to the states - ie. the government can't do anything unless specifically authorized by the constitution. This amendment has been dead for a long, long time.

The democratic and republican parties are one and the same. They may have petty little battles that distract the majority of the people, but their real goal is to increase the power of the government. They actively work together, but they actively work against all other parties.

If Bush had done a good job, if Bush had been a good president, he would have worked to reduce the power of government - the ability of government agents to abuse their power.

Regardless of whether you like Bush, think about this - the amazing increase of power not only of the President but also among all federal agencies (under the control of the president, of course) has an amazing potential for abuse. Maybe you like Bush, and maybe you trust him. Maybe you don't. But think... isn't there a pretty good chance that there will be a president elected in your lifetime who you DON'T trust with that kind of power?

I am more afraid of a totalitarian government than I am of terrorists. Many more americans have died from totalitarian actions of our government than have died from terrorist attacks. We need laws that restrict the power of government, that can prevent government abuse of power - we don't need any more laws that allow the FBI to spy on american citizens or to detain them without a trial.

Bush is not doing a good job... unless you're a fascist.

Naked Prophet:

You should write these forwards that people distribute all over the internet. You seem to be good at it. Lots of "we all know" and "we've all seen" when really I don't know and I haven't seen much of what you are talking about.

If you would like me to go yell that Bush should be hanged for treason on a street corner I will. Then, for several years afterwards, I will continue to write you e-mails, confirming that I have not "dissapeared" nor have I met any FBI agents. Which city and street corner should I use? No one I know, including you who seems fairly anti-Bush, has disappeared. I have not heard of anyone disappearing, which probably shouldn't surprise me since its a conspiracy, and I don't keep up with that news pamphlet.

I haven't seen any protests or assemblies that were truly "peacable" be broken up. Please link some examples, where the assemblers weren't blocking traffic or fights did not break out between people of opposing viewpoints. Just people standing in a park extolling their views then getting arrested.

That shoestring link you had was from a National Firearms Act Ruling made back in the 1980's. I haven't seen that particular case, but from the small amount of research I just did, the shoestring may have been able to make the gun fire faster than it was made to. In that case, it would be in violation of that section, and I don't think it's Bush's fault anyways what was passed in the 80's.

The habeus corpus thing with private companies was recently overturned by the Senate (both parties voting to overturn it) so that's the Supreme Court's fault on that decision. No one on the Supreme Court currently was put there by Bush.

I don't know any of any American citizens detained without due process. Links would be helpful.

Personally, I have experienced NO effects of this blatant disregard for personal freedoms and move towards totalitarianism that you claim is going on. I haven't seen any black helicopters, nor felt unsafe saying what my views are. I'm sorry if this has been the case for you, although I suspect it hasn't. Bush hasn't been a great president, but I don't feel his boot in my back holding me down currently.

That's about all I've got.

~Your local facist

I'm with paradigm on this one.

Some REALLY big flaws in your "logic" in the few minutes I have till later:

1st, combine A and B, then realize that FDR came to the rescue of the rest of the world embroiled in war, not starting a war and attempting to bring the rest of the world in.

2nd, Truman ended that war, and assisted when NORTH KOREA invaded South Korea. Get the facts straight, we (the Allies, as many nations sent troops to assist) pushed them back up into North Korea but DIDNT start the war.

3rd, the Damned French started the Vietnam war, our Presidents mistakenly thought to help our allies with a war that they caused (the French attempts to retake their former colony made them turn to Russia for help, which in turn caused them to be labeled "communist" until we got involved and they truely became that at some point).

I don't disagree that Sadam was a horrible person that should have been taken care of, but the reason Bush's father didn't do it was because we would end up with exactly the situation we have here (at least according to one place I had read - another was that the oppressed side of the religion in Iraq would come to power and join with Iran - we needed a counterpoint to Iran's radical religious views).

Hey, you're right about the amount of time it took us to crush the army, but look at the aftermath. Countries around the world hate us even more, Iraq is still hellish with kidnapings and bombing, and Iran is even more insane.

As far as Bush's other actions go, it seems to be a decent into the McCarthy days and the redscare of the 50s. I'm outta time so I'll try for more later, but I too am scared of the expansion of powers such as wiretapping and detention capabilities of the current administration, and I think anybody else with the tiniest free thinking should be frightened as well for what it means.

let's not forget, even the new patriot act has a 'sunset' clause, meaning it will expire...

while i don't believe that any of the stuff prophet said is common like he says, this is the sort of abuse you will never hear about, until it's too late. taking history as a guide here, and believing absolute power, corrupts absolutely, is indeed a scary thought.

edit:the stuff not expiring doesn't seem that scary. The renewal hasn't been passed by the senate yet. The act passed in 2001, expires Dec 31st, 2005.

H.R.3162 is the old act, H.R.3199 is still being worked on between the house and senate. The summary of the non/expiring things is the wikipedia link

The case the supreme court decided hearing, will hopefully change things for the detainees the military is holding.

I wasn't aware. When?

I don't think you can rightly act like it is "Bush's Patriot Act." The Senate is just, if not more responsible for the Patriot Act.