oh man, don't know why I am getting involved but:
the funny thing is Bush DID say that the war on terrorism would be a long-haul, but if we were really that concerned about terrorism, why aren't we more invovled with Afghanistan? why can we pull Saddam out of a goddam hole in the ground, but we can't find Bin Laden?
it's all very interesting to me.

ya good point, we've already exceeded WWII with Iraq

Buckman;
War on terror = Long Haul
War in Iraq = 'Mission Accomplished?'

If we end up with cheaper oil from Iraq, the war looks a lot better.

so true, you know, if that were to happen miraculously in the next few months and Bush said "just kidding about terrorism, it was about the oil control all along and now the world is better because oil is cheaper"
I would be a lot happier too, you know I could care less if Bush and his cronies make all the money, as long as it makes things cheaper for us!

The oil wont be much cheaper even when it starts flowing out Iraq. Relatively inelastic demand and a weak dollar will ensure a gallon of gas stays well above 3.50 for the short term. Once they raise interests rates on the Euro, were going to see another run up in price on a barrel of oil. Does not look like there will be much in way of relief anytime soon.

I'm not just talking time, and you know it. We are still in Korea,Vietnam,and Germany. We are involved in Afghanistan, heavily involved, maybe you experts can tell me the amount of involvment you are looking for. What's so interesting about Bin Laden not being caught yet. That idiot Bush pulling off another con lke 9/11?

And none of those places have the JAM blowing people up for the hell of it.

I don't think anyone, including Barak Obama, has any issue with the USA being heavily involved in the Middle East to protect our interests over the long haul and assert ourselves.

But to claim Bush made is clear to the American people that Iraq would be a long drawn out event is really intellectually dishonest. They made is painfully clear that this was a pretty straightforward mission which wasn't going to cost all that much. That the Iraqi people were basically just waiting for us to remove Saddam so they could get on with being our friends...

When the lack of planning started to be obvious, they kept clear from pragmatic policy in favor of election rhetoric, insisting we "stay the course" and steadfastly refusing to confront reality with reason.

Bush put the survival of the GOP ahead of our troops and their mission. History will not be kind to GWB.

-spence

ok, there are 32,000 troops in Afghanistan compared with about 150,000 in Iraq, I would say that's not as heavily involved

ha! nice one Joe.

The folks in the whitehouse now are simply lobbyists who were voted in.. they are wolves in sheeps clothing. If you look at what they have done these past few years you will see that they have systematicly dismantled anything that was hindering coerperate profits for the good of the people- they loosened refinery restrictions so the oil companies could make more money, they loosened restrictions on logging, what ever they could do to help corperations make more money was the highest priority- the war in Iraq- im not even going there..
Sure, they pander to the christian base and talk the talk, but in the end, none of them give two craps about you or me or any one.