Yes, it's true.

What, exactly, are the "good" things going on in Iraq?

I wouldn't know, they don't show that on tv.

I wouldn't know, they don't show that on tv.

Then how do you know there are any? Does all your information regarding world affairs come via the TV?

I'm afraid I would think that anything good on TV about Iraq is governemnt propoganda. So I have a blind spot there....

Then how do you know there are any? Does all your information regarding world affairs come via the TV?

I never said I knew of any, yet I wonder why that is? The mainstream media (sorry, not just tv) doesn't report much of anything other than fatalities, bombings, and such. I don't know why our military would say they wish the news would show the good things, positive things, if there really wasn't any. Oh, wait, GWB must have MADE them say that to make it look like there actually are things going on other than killing. Yeah, that makes more sense.

BBC doesn't report that there are good things going on. Thai news doesn't report that there are any good things going on. New Delhi doesn't report any. France doesn't. Brazil doesn't. Must be a conspiracy.

BetsyJane: I love the way you have with words and I enjoy reading your thoughtful posts.

Carlene: I don't know how you dig up all this stuff, but it is definitely food for thought. Right now I want to write NewYork's Senator Clinton to demand answers to this Kurdish woman's claims about her.

I do realize that people can write anything they wish. It may not necessarily be true, but it bears checking out.

I had read somewhere that she was much more hawkish on this war than Clinton might have been. She has spoken out in favour of it since holding her present elected position. Upon learning this I became somewhat less enchanted by her - I am one of those who have always been against this war in Iraq - but I am a foreigner and wouldn't be able to vote anyway.

Carlene: I don't know how you dig up all this stuff, but it is definitely food for thought. Right now I want to write NewYork's Senator Clinton to demand answers to this Kurdish woman's claims about her.

I do realize that people can write anything they wish. It may not necessarily be true, but it bears checking out.

I read a lot. I read my local paper, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, every day. I subscribe to Newsweek and Reader's Digest, and I watch CNN. I also belong to many online forums.

I first read Sureya Sayadi's article in conjunction with the CodePink movement - something that caught my eye because of its obviously feminist core.

I just wanted to weigh in here (no pun intended).

I think George W is one of the best presidents we've ever had. He is not perfect, I certainly realize that, but I can't anyone would have done a better job than he has. We were attacked out of the blue (despite Clinton being warned by the CIA that cells were forming to attack the US, who did nothing to stop them), and the vast majority of the nation was calling for retaliation attacks against whoever did this. However, when the US did attack the areas believed to be involved with the cells, suddenly Bush is terribly bad for going to war. Huh?

It was a no-win situation for him. Have soldiers died? Yes, it's a war. Have things gone exactly to plan? No, it's war.

Bush is a God-fearing Christian who prays regularly and asks God's guidance for his decisions. You can't get any better than that.

By the way, have any of you heard that the economic stats are as good or better than during Clinton's presidency? They are, but I doubt you've heard any of that...

So much to say, so little time. Blast!

I just wanted to weigh in here (no pun intended).

I think George W is one of the best presidents we've ever had. He is not perfect, I certainly realize that, but I can't anyone would have done a better job than he has. We were attacked out of the blue (despite Clinton being warned by the CIA that cells were forming to attack the US, who did nothing to stop them), and the vast majority of the nation was calling for retaliation attacks against whoever did this. However, when the US did attack the areas believed to be involved with the cells, suddenly Bush is terribly bad for going to war. Huh?

It was a no-win situation for him. Have soldiers died? Yes, it's a war. Have things gone exactly to plan? No, it's war.

Bush is a God-fearing Christian who prays regularly and asks God's guidance for his decisions. You can't get any better than that.

By the way, have any of you heard that the economic stats are as good or better than during Clinton's presidency? They are, but I doubt you've heard any of that...

Clinton did indeed go after terrorists, remember all the complaints when he bombed? All the "he got an asprin factory"? All the "wag the dog"? Congress denied him more powers to fight terror, including expanded wiretapping he wanted. His outgoing administration tried to warn Bush's incoming one, they didn't take it seriously enough. I mean, how can you say it was "out of the blue" then in the next breath(so to speak) say that Clinton was warned and did nothing? That seem contradictory to me. Did the CIA not think to warn Bush when he came in?

And there never was any proof that Iraq was in any way involved with 9/11. None.

I don't know about the overall stats, but my family isn't better off. Ever since the tax relief bills, we've had to pay instead of getting a refund.

Oh, my...

...

I think George W is one of the best presidents we've ever had.

Well, you're certainly in a minority there...history will judge him as one of the worst...in contention with Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.

He is not perfect, I certainly realize that, but I can't anyone would have done a better job than he has.

No. Almost anyone with a brain bigger than his ego could have done a better job. Bush DID NOT LISTEN TO HIS OWN EXPERTS. He had his own agenda. HE IS SURE THAT GOD IS TELLING HIM WHAT TO DO...so were the guys flying those planes into the Pentagon and WTC.

We were attacked out of the blue (despite Clinton being warned by the CIA that cells were forming to attack the US, who did nothing to stop them), and the vast majority of the nation was calling for retaliation attacks against whoever did this. However, when the US did attack the areas believed to be involved with the cells, suddenly Bush is terribly bad for going to war. Huh?

I have to guess you have missed some of the finer points of the facts about the war. So, for the record...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. SADDAM HUSSIEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Bush kept SAYING they were related, and, judging by your comments, some people STILL believe that to be the case, even though Bush has now stated that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

The ONLY people who believed that Iraq and Saddam had anything to do with the terrorists attacks here are the people who believed Dubya. The intelligence community did to believe it nor did Bush himself. He just lied and the naive believed and some apparently still believe him.

It was a no-win situation for him. Have soldiers died? Yes, it's a war. Have things gone exactly to plan? No, it's war.

But a poorly planned war, isn't it? How will YOU know that we "won?" I mean, before you go to war, you set a goal..."we'll take over the capital" or "we'll destroy the city" or "we'll kill the king," kind of thing. So when you declare "war" on terrorism (or evil or sins or crime or poverty or drugs, etc)...what event happens that allows you to decalre a victory? In other words...this "war" has been unwinnable from the get-go.

Bush is a God-fearing Christian who prays regularly and asks God's guidance for his decisions. You can't get any better than that.

Osama bin Laden is a God fearing Muslim who prays regularly and ask God's guidance for his decisions. (You see any parallels there?)

By the way, have any of you heard that the economic stats are as good or better than during Clinton's presidency? They are, but I doubt you've heard any of that...

Okay, now this is just BIZARRE! When Clinton left office, we had a SURPLUS. Bush took that SURPLUS, blew it and has now landed your grandchildren in debt. No matter who is in office for the next several decades, taxpayers will be paying for this mess. Have my stocks gone up? Yes, they have. Considerably. Maybe I got lucky. Is the local Greek fast food place advertising for "Happy Help Wanted?" You bet...and they probably pay a full time person about $325 a week, at best. According to realtor dot com, the cheapest house for rent in this zip code is $3000 per month and the cheapest house for sale is listed at $675,000. I don't see how Bush's part time fast-food jobs are going to keep this ocuntry afloat.

We were attacked out of the blue (despite Clinton being warned by the CIA that cells were forming to attack the US, who did nothing to stop them), and the vast majority of the nation was calling for retaliation attacks against whoever did this. However, when the US did attack the areas believed to be involved with the cells, suddenly Bush is terribly bad for going to war. Huh?

Where shall I start? First of all, the CIA is not a politically appointed position. The same CIA people who warned Clinton also warned Bush. The difference being that Clinton DID try to do something about it and was whipped up on BADLY by the Republicans. Bush, on the other hand, did nothing. Bush is and always has been best buds with the Saudis, and who were most of the 9/11 terrorists? Saudi nationals....imagine that. As for attacking "areas believed to be involved with the cells"....do you mean Iraq? Because that's who we attacked. But Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11. What's wrong with that picture?

Bush is a God-fearing Christian who prays regularly and asks God's guidance for his decisions.

Osama bin Laden is a God-fearing Muslim who prays regularly and asks God's guidance for his decisions. What's your point?

By the way, have any of you heard that the economic stats are as good or better than during Clinton's presidency? They are, but I doubt you've heard any of that...

Oh, please tell us where we might read about this. Obviously you have access to some reliable source that the rest of us are not privy to. Please share!

Please excuse the redundancy in the above two replies. While Carlene and I do not agree on everything, there are SOME issues that almost defy disagreement.

Hillary Clinton has been a very strong proponent of the U.S. getting involved in helping women all over the world who have been discriminated against. I am thinking that if she is hawkish on this war, it has something to do with her belief that it will serve to help the women of Iraq.

However if she has a blind spot because of her advocacy for women, and is irrationally supporting our stance in Iraq, it might be viewed as a weakness if she were elected president. On the other hand, hearing people agree that she is such a strong supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq really makes me wonder... especially seeing Bill Clinton buddy up to George Herbert Walker the way he has. I hate to think that these people have sold out too.