I guess we are supposed to shake our heads and say – that is politics as usual and accept it.

They are rotten to the core on both sides of aisle. What I find laughable is that Bush finds all this pork unacceptable (now) and then acts like he didn’t know of all the pork that he signed off on already. In MHO, this is a major factor why the Reps lost their respect and credibility and ultimately the last election.

Are we so sad that dems or reps is the only major choice we have?

The graphs speak for themselves.

You forget: THE WORLD thought Saddam had WOMD. The UN ratified over 19 resolutions over it. But no one really DID anything. So here we were, after 9-11, facing this new enemy. Who, according to many, was in bed with Saddam. Intelligence was wrong. People always seem to blame Bush for this…when we used British, French and Russian intelligence. As well as our own.

AQ isn’t located in one little country. AQ isn’t just an army of terrorists in one stretch of land. They were in Iraq. They’re in Iran right now. They’re here in the US. Praying to Allah that people like you keep on doing what you’re doing…swallowing the liberal Kool Aid. You’re falling right into their trap. 50 plus years of terrorism in the Middle east has little to do with Bush…and it’s more than 50 yrs…it’s been hundreds of years.
The War on Terrorism isn’t going to be easy. I fear it’s going to end to, because so many people, like you rita, refuse to call the enemy for what they are and instead you attack Bush. You’re wrong, I believe. Liberals have always been on the wrong side of history. This time though it might cost us our country.

That’s assuming we’d be doing drug interdiction missions with the troops there instead of leaving it to the locals. Drug intertiction is a thing we have not usually done, even before the invasion of Iraq, since it’s the main source of funding for some of the warlords we wanted/needed in the coalition to smack around the Taliban.

“tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be alive”

Assuming they weren’t executed by Sadam, or killed by lack of water reclimation/sewage treatment facilities, and medical supplies because of Oil For Food program corruption.

“we wouldn’t have exhausted our armed forces”

I argue that this was caused by Clinton’s combined force policy that stripped us of 2 front capability because he reasoned we’d never again need it.

“and we would not have reinvigorated extremism all over the region.”

You mean, if we hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003, the trend over the last 50+ years of increasing extremism in the region wouldn’t have happened? Gotta love time paradoxes.

America doesn’t lose. We are winners and it’s not cheap. No war is cheap. According to so many liberals we have gone to this war CHEAP. So, your own words mean more than you think.

Rita, you do realize that there are multiple explanations for putting the largest embassy there. The one that comes to my mind is the exact opposite of what you think we’re doing. My idea is that it needs to be so freaking big and expensive because we will eventually pull out and in such an event it needs to be built like a fortress, instead of a large building with a 1/2 foot thick brick and stucko wall around it.

And honestly, if they can’t get the support they need to pass bills (ANY bill) without adding provisions for unrelated garbage, then they probably shouldn’t pass the bill to begin with. I can take the side deals where a senator will go “hey support my bill and I’ll support yours”, but piling a bunch of BS riders into one thing is dishonest and potentially harmful.