Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

"There is much to criticize in the president's statement. Is he hypocritical to embrace a broad view of God-given rights when, during the 2000 campaign, he scoffed at Clinton-Gore efforts to promote freedom around the world? You bet. Is he myopic in seeing these issues only in some disfavored regimes, while ignoring the thirst for freedom in so many other countries? Absolutely. Is it wrong for the president to have sold the war to the American people on one basis (the search for weapons of mass destruction) and now defend its prosecution on a different basis (the promotion of human freedom)? Undoubtedly. "

Some would argue that Bush didn't really get the majority of voters behind him in the first place.

what were bush's own words about Nation Building? Is he lying now or was he lying then?

Actually, not everyone who changes his mind was lying. Sometimes it's a sign of growth and flexibility. I would be willing to bet that you have stated ideas publicly and then changed your mind.

In the case of Iraq, nation building is a good thing. I will not get into the ten hour discussion about why I'm glad we removed Hussein's government, but I will say that since we did, I think it is our responsibility to leave them with a functioning democracy.

We agree to disagree.

What a load of hogwash. Maybe Jesus can get us out of the morass that jackass got us into in Iraq.

It's a good thing that you have this outlet for your feelings. I do, however, disagree with most of the assumptions implicit in your exclamation.

I would be more inclined to believe that Bush changed his mind on nation building as a result of 9/11 if there aren't so many sources that confirm that Bush was focused on regime change in Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.

Brandon9000


Since you disagree I guess I will have to put myself to bed without supper. Woe is me.

centroles. I was waiting for his apologists to bring that point about how the world was changed after 9/11, when evidence is consistent with a pre-considered and planned Iraq attack well before then.

Well dang me, dang me
They oughta take a rope and hang me
High from the higest treeeeeeeeee . . .

Woman dontcha weep for me . . .

well, we had nothing to go on but sketchy intelligence, contradictory rumours from unreliable sources and vague threats so we invaded Iraq.
It wasn't nation building, it was out-sourcing our faith-based Almighty imperatives. Damn the rpg's bring it on.

I can understand if he changed his view dramatically, 9/11 changed how all Americans saw the world, and if you ask me, the views it changed might have been for the better. We had lived too long in the days of "We are an unnstopable superpower". 9/11 brought a dose of reality to us all.

Now, on the subject of "Freedom being the Almighties gift to everyone". I dissagre with that statement entirelly. Freedom is not to be considered a right automatically given to everyone. No one should have their freedom handed to them on a silver platter. Freedom must be obtained and worked for. That is the only way that freedom shall be granted.

unknown_man
And may I add, appreciated.

I doubt Jesus is slapping his thigh over the bloody carnage underway in Iraq.

But Bush will have to account for his Holy War on day and it's not going to be pretty.

Centroles, The war in Iraq was not justified on the basis of "search for WMDs." We were told they knew the location of those WMDs. Quite a different scenario in my book. BTW, Senator Feinstein said recently that she and many others would not have voted for the war if they knew what they know now; that they were lied to about WMDs.

This diatribe against Bush for professing his faith in God is over the top even for the left. I would guess not one of you issued a murmer about Bill Clinton having the press corps follow him into black churches--he always carried this BIG black showy Bible and never cracked it open in a service--and you probably never commented when he would ask preachers to come to the White House, in full view of the cameras of course, to counsel and pray with him. Even Billy Graham went to see Bill Clinton.

Are presidents playing the 'religious' card when they do this? I don't know.

The thesis of this thread is actually the fact that 90% of Americans do believe in God and a substantial number of voters are religious. To condemn a president because he professes faith in God is less than expedient.

care to make a guess?

Quote, " To condemn a president because he professes faith in God is less than expedient." And ofcoarse Bush doesn't use it for his advantage in any way shape or form since nothing else makes any sense.

Foxfyre, I don't condemn the president (edit) because he believes in God. I condemn the president because he believes in his Christian jihad.The separation of church and state is the most important distinction between our society and those in the Middle East. I want to keep it that way.