Sadr runs & hides like the ***** he is!

[LiberalNation]

They wouldn't fund it and the hell to be payed would not be in congress but the next prez election when a dem wins by a crazy majority. I think you must be living in a bubble world to think americans support fighting another war in the ME. They want us out of the one we're in now. That's from my personal prespective of course but I do live in red state Kentucky and not a single person I've spoken to is happy with Bush or the wars he's started.

What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and wrong. If Bush tried it there would be problems. I see him getting his butt impeached if he attacked Iran with out congressional aproval.

[Gunny]

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

It is a liberal quality to put personal convenience ahead of everything else even when it has an adverse affect on the greater good.

I think you are wrong about Iran. It is my opinion you misjudge the American people on Iran just as you are misinterpretting the last election. And I'm really getting tired of pointing out the fact to you "mandate" libs that the Dems slipped in through the back door because conservatives made kneejerk decisions and voiced their disapproval with the then-current representatives by abstaining from voting without considering the consequences of those actions. Same way your boy Clinton got elected to the Presidency. When conservatives are united and vote, you libs always find yourselves on the outside looking in.

So to answer your question, Republicans got their "asses kicked" due to dissension among the ranks of the right, and people not thinking their actions through to conclusion.

As far as Iran goes, I think the American people see Iran as a FAR bigger threat than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably because it is. Iran is a terrorist state, run by militant Islamic fundamentalists, on the verge on obtaining nuclear weapons. If that doesn't scare you, it should.

If President Bush decides to act against Iran, it would not support impeachment for treason. Diasgreeing with and acting in opposition to the Democrat party doesn't come anywhere mear treason. Matter of fact, it usually means somebody's doing the right thing.

[Gunny]

They wouldn't fund it and the hell to be payed would not be in congress but the next prez election when a dem wins by a crazy majority. I think you must be living in a bubble world to think americans support fighting another war in the ME. They want us out of the one we're in now. That's from my personal prespective of course but I do live in red state Kentucky and not a single person I've spoken to is happy with Bush or the wars he's started.

What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and wrong. If Bush tried it there would be problems. I see him getting his butt impeached if he attacked Iran with out congressional aproval.

Again, what are you going to impeach him for? Acting within the authority of his office?

What Lincoln did was unConstitutional, but necessary for the preservation of this Nation as we know it, so it wasn't "wrong." Sometimes, the end DOES justify the means.

And just a little clarifier ... the people of this Nation want a victory, not "out." Being dissatisfied with how th ewar is being conducted doesn't mean everyone's ready to cut-n-run. That's just more of you libs reading into something what isn't there by skewing the facts.

[LiberalNation]

As far as Iran goes, I think the American people see Iran as a FAR bigger threat than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably because it is. Iran is a terrorist state, run by militant Islamic fundamentalists, on the verge on obtaining nuclear weapons.

So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

[LiberalNation]

Again, what are you going to impeach him for? Acting within the authority of his office?

You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

What Lincoln did was unConstitutional, but necessary for the preservation of this Nation as we know it, so it wasn't "wrong." Sometimes, the end DOES justify the means.

Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

[manu1959]

So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

what would have been the premise for invading iran?

[Gunny]

So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already posted once this morning since it seems to be the lib day to rehash the "WMD" argument. The fact is, Saddam produced, possessed and used WMDs. It's quite obvious to anyone above the age of three that he wasn't going to stop pursuing them.

IIRC, correctly, at the time the US invaded Iraq, President Alphabet wasn't in the picture yet, and Iran had a more moderate leader, who wasn't rattling his saber, and overtly flaunting what they're doing in regard to nukes in our faces.

[LiberalNation]

what would have been the premise for invading iran?

Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.

[manu1959]

You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

lincoln re-united this great country.....i for one do not really care that he broke a few eggs....if not for lincoln....this land would be somewhere between 2 and 50 nations....

[LiberalNation]

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.

I wasn't even alive when Carter was president and from all I've read about him he wasn't a very good one.

[manu1959]

Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.

really...... i was unaware that there was over a decade of negotiations with iran and 18 UN resolutions and violations of a cease fire with a US ally....

[Gunny]

You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

If there was a any REAL dirt on President Bush, ti would've already been used. Wishful thinking on your part.

Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

So, in your opinion, those principles this country was founded upon cannot be even temporarily suspended in order to preserve the verysame principles? I disagree. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

Incorrect. YOU and your lefty cohorts want out. A loss for the US is a mere inconvenience to you guys when political victory within the US is at stake. Y'all think you're going to sit back after the fact and blame Bush, but you don't have the foresight to see the consequences of your actions. The backlash will be the same as it was after Viet Nam. When the smoke clears, the people are going to see EXACTLY what the cause was, and y'all will be out on your ears again.

[Gunny]

Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.

Would it? You mean Iran actually possesses WMDs? Your evidence?

Remember, an attack on Iran would be to proactively circumvent it gaining nuclear weapons capabilities, not because they already have them.

[LiberalNation]

lincoln re-united this great country.....i for one do not really care that he broke a few eggs....if not for lincoln....this land would be somewhere between 2 and 50 nations....

My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

[Gunny]

I wasn't even alive when Carter was president and from all I've read about him he wasn't a very good one.

You think? Then why is it your political POV is a DIRECT result of his taking the Democrat party to the far left, if you think he wasn't a good President?