Lexis

Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange

Nice way to speak to a man whose son is putting his life at risk in Iraq. I'm glad Webb didn't hit him - being able to manage anger will be good for him when he gets going in the Senate.

What else could Webb say?

"Oh, my son's fine Mr President. He's only dodging bullets, suicide bombers, IED's, you know, the usual stuff our soldiers in Iraq are facing. How are your daughters doing? I heard about the bag snatching - its such a dangerous world today."

sunnykerr

Or, how's this, "My son's doing fine, Mr. President. The Texas National Guard's been real nice to him. Especially since he took off halfway through his post with them... Oh, wait... No, that was you, wasn't it?"

Jacob1983

My grandpa was drafted and served during WWII and I never once heard him complain about being drafted and fighting over seas. It's a shame how things have changed.

sunnykerr

Oh, I agree.

It's a shame wars are fought at the drop of a hat nowadays. For no reason. And at the word of men who never fought themselves, nor intend on sending any of their own into battle.

It's a shame that when these leaders are called on their ability to make such decisions, it's the people who question who are somehow suspect or unpatriotic for doing so. It's especially a shame when people like your grandfather, and my grandfather, fought and risked their lives to defend a world in which we are all entitled to question the decisions made by our elected officials.

It's a shame that this administration, who came in originally to "restore dignity to the Office" has apparently no capacity of internalizing even the smallest of criticism lodged against it.

Jacob1983

When I said it's a shame how things have changed, I wasn't bashing Bush. I haven't bought into the fad of Bush bashing like so many Americans have.

TokyoNiGHTS

Are you honestly trying to compare the Iraq war to WWII? People don't have problems fighting for wars they believe in. The problem is people don't believe in this war. And a good reason why is because our own president can't lay out a realistic goal or even an actual plan. As a result people don't want others going over and fighitng in this disaster.

Jacob1983

I've just never seen so many Americans want to give up on something. I thought giving up is something that we didn't do. I guess I was wrong. However, I still believe that it is possible that if our troops do completely withdrawal from Iraq without finishing the job that we may have a terrorist attack on America. I don't know about you guys but I would much rather have our guys fighting terrorists over there than on American soil.

TokyoNiGHTS

People want out because again, we have no plan. For as much as Republicans yell at Democrats about getting their plan out, we don't even have a plan from the guy who's bright idea it was to get us into this mess. And that scares the hell out of people and makes them want out. Maybe if the people running this war could actually give people a reason to believe in it then they would.

sunnykerr

1- "Give up on something" implies that a decision was made by a group. This is not the case.

2- "Give up on something" also implies that there is a something to hold on to. No idea what that would be in this case.

3- There may still be a terrorist attack on America. Believe it or not, there are terrorists outside of Iraq. For instance, this wacky, unknown terrorist called Osama bin Laden isn't in Iraq.

4- There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were prior to the war. Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil, man who ran a total dictatorship and treated his people like crap. However, being such an evil, evil dictator dude, he tended to target any and all entities that could challenge his leadership... like, say, terrorist organizations.

5- Do you really think there's any chance anyone left in Iraq is going to come out of this war with happy, warm feelings for the United States?

6- Fighting terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean you'll never have to fight them on U.S. soil. It doesn't even mean that you're delaying that possibility. It just means you're exhausting your troops and putting them in harm's way in the meantime.

Bush-bashing is a fad? Aren't fads, by their very definition, short-term crazes?

Maybe it's the fact that I'm Canadian (because, you know, we'll just bash Americans for no good reason, it's just part of who we are), but it doesn't seem to me like Bush criticism has been a short-term thing by anyone's definition...

ceilirose

Why do they have to risk their lives because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and that whole gang screwed up?

Think of the billions of our tax payer's dollars that have gone into Iraq that could have gone into finding and prosecuting bin Laden. We've wasted 3 years and billions of dollars in Iraq against this so called "War on Terror". Iraq was never in the forefront of terrorism - Bush calling it that was spin to try and keep support up for the war.

Most Americans have seen through that now.

Also the military can't police Iraq because they're aren't enough of them to do it. You can't keep on asking 20 year olds to keep on going to Iraq for a neo-con dream of mid-east democracy.

Lexis

Cheney himself rejected this comparison. It just doesn't hold up.

I'm sure that sentiment is of great comfort to the millions of Iraqis in the middle of this mess.

Its also a flawed argument. British soldiers went to war side by side with American forces - so did the Spanish. And both Britain and Spain were then attacked, with bombers using Iraq as a reason for their terrible acts.

American homeland security depends far more on creating secure borders and ports, upping airline security, getting good intelligence and working with allies to thwart any attacks.

The terrorists are playing a long game - my lord, they were planning 9/11 for years before they carried it out. One war in one country in the middle east is not going to protect America from terrorists attacking you. Iraq is not a country full to the brim with terrorists but it is a country being torn apart because of our complete failure to plan and take into account the results of a war.

sunnykerr

Another point in the whole WWII/Iraq comparison... As of this weekend, the United States has been in Iraq for a longer period of time than their involvement in World War II was. So I suppose that's another reason the two shouldn't be compared.

Jacob1983

So answer this for me, why hasn't America had a terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11? Could it be even possible that Bush and his guys are doing something right by making America safer since 9/11?

Honestly, do you guys want our troops to fight terrorists in America rather than over in the Middle East?

This might sound really mean but if you don't want to fight wars for your country then maybe you shouldn't be in the militiary. Fighting wars for your country is a price you pay when you are in our military.

sunnykerr

How the heck could I possibly know why terrorists aren't attacking the United States? I am not a terrorist. I have zero access to their thought processes.

All I do know is that the presence or absence of attacks cannot possibly be the sole indicator of degrees of safety, else the Terror Alarm levels wouldn't have moved since 9/11, and they have. Also, that would mean that the United States was save on September 10, 2001, and then again on September 12, 2001. I wouldn't say that.

And, of course, making America safer is the right thing to do. Who said otherwise? That in no way means that this is what Bush and his neo-con owners have been doing since 9/11.

Allow me to repeat myself:

3- There may still be a terrorist attack on America. Believe it or not, there are terrorists outside of Iraq. For instance, this wacky, unknown terrorist called Osama bin Laden isn't in Iraq.

4- There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were prior to the war. Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil, man who ran a total dictatorship and treated his people like crap. However, being such an evil, evil dictator dude, he tended to target any and all entities that could challenge his leadership... like, say, terrorist organizations.

6- Fighting terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean you'll never have to fight them on U.S. soil. It doesn't even mean that you're delaying that possibility. It just means you're exhausting your troops and putting them in harm's way in the meantime.

And I will add this: This isn't an either-or proposition. One thing does not mean the other is impossible.

There's a difference between fighting for your country and fighting so corporate interests can be furthered.

There's also a difference between fighting for your country, and being sent into a situation where you are litterally sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one. Since the beginning of this conflict, senior military officials have repeatedly told Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration that the war in Iraq would require infinitely more troops than were sent, better equipment than has been provided, and certainly more global cooperation.

Do not insult the military personel who would lay down their lives for their country by implying that it's just too bad they didn't anticipate being hung out to dry by an administration who is more preoccupied with its polling numbers than it is with the welfare of its troops.

ceilirose

So that's the sole qualifier? What happens if we have one this afternoon? I wish it were that simple. Every expert in terrorism has said that it's only a matter of time before we are attacked again because nothing is fail proof. In fact we did have a terrorist attack after 9/11 - the anthrax mailings killed people and they've never been solved.

So a Middle Eastern life is less than an American life? We are not fighting terrorists in Iraq - we are policing a civil war. Why can't you admit that?

Some of them have been over there 3 or 4 times. We are sending over 60 year old grandmothers. Where is the shared sacrifice? Simple answer - there isn't any. You write off their sacrifice like it means nothing. Beyond that we're ruining our military by stretching the troops and equipment to the breaking point. God help us all if we ever are attacked for real. Where are the troops that will protect us then?

ETA - I wish there was a video of Webb's exchange with Bush. It would be priceless to see.