I'm sorry I don't have more time to post and really explain what I mean, but Peter's nearly got it.

Basically I think that Bush really failed in several key areas with regard to how he sold the war to the public (he either lied or was incompetent) and treated the U.N. He sold this war as a search for WMD, now a PR disaster because even he admits that wasn't the real goal in the first place.

Whateve the Bush's adminstration's behavior, for reasons discussed before I think the world will be better off for us having gone into Iraq. I don't believe that our soldiers are dying because Bush made some mistakes, but to protect and free the people of Iraq. Yes there is a high price to pay for what we've done, but ultimately I think the price will be worth it.

So you see, I support the war, but not how Bush has handled it.

I see Bush's humor targeted at his mistake of how he sold the war on Iraq, not at throwing us into a war we shouldn't be in. He very obviously feels this war is the Right Thing, but he's admitting the WMD thing probably wasn't the best argument to hang his hat on.

ALL politicians are lying or will lie to us.

This reminds me of a favorite Douglas Adams quote.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Very very accurate. And I personally know quite a few politicians.

the great scottish philosopher know as the Big Yin said

Anyone who wishes to be a politiain should be banned for life from ever becoming one.

I see Bush's humor targeted at his mistake of how he sold the war on Iraq

Which brings us back to Peter's point about joking about the gullibility of the electorate...

Whateve the Bush's adminstration's behavior, for reasons discussed before I think the world will be better off for us having gone into Iraq. I don't believe that our soldiers are dying because Bush made some mistakes, but to protect and free the people of Iraq. Yes there is a high price to pay for what we've done, but ultimately I think the price will be worth it.

Yes, protect and free those people of Iraq that we care so much about. Come on. What about the people of North Korea? Where's Zimbabwe on our list? How about Iran? Libya? Syra? If, as you say, it's really about the people, why are we stopping with Iraq? What was so important about the people of Iraq that they had to be liberated RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT, and without the blessing and support of a majority of our allies?

So you see, I support the war, but not how Bush has handled it.

Okay, that clears things up, but if you really care about the oppressed people of fascist dictatorships around the world, tell me if we should stop with Iraq, or move on to the next front in our efforts to "lberate" people. Where should we go next? Should we bother to get our friends on board this time around, or just go it alone again?

I'm not trying to be overly critical here, I just would like to know why liberating Iraq was at the top of Bush's priority list, above the economy, healthcare, and, oh yes, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. And, for what it's worth, I totally supported this war back when I believed there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that there were WMD's. But please forgive me if my naievite has been replaced by cynicism which won't allow me to believe that GWB and his comrades really care about the people of Iraq.

tell me if we should stop with Iraq

One could argue that Iraq would be sufficient to show dictators the error of their ways. For a positive example, see the way that Ghadaffi has recently opened his weapons programmes.

Personally, I'd argue that this is a crock of [censored] and that, by invading a country that turns out not to have nuclear weapons while ignoring those that have themselves declared a nuclear weapons programme, you're just encouraging nuclear proliferation for self-defense. Hell, if I was a tinpot third-world dictator, I'd seriously be thinking about getting some right now.

Of course, this gets us back to the WMD issue, rather than the human rights issues. And as we all know, the war in Iraq is about human rights and democracy this week.

I'd still contend that invading Iraq sends completely the wrong message to those other dictators abusing human rights. In short, even if we accept the premise that invading Iraq was a good thing -- pour encourager les autres -- the mixed messages coming from the Bush administration don't actually tell "les autres" what they're being "encourager"-ed to do. Stop smoking in public places, maybe?

I don't believe that our soldiers are dying because Bush made some mistakes, but to protect and free the people of Iraq.

While I think that invading Iraq, and continuing to occupy it with troops, in order to establish a better standard of life for the ordinary Iraqi, is a good thing, and should be applauded -- if it all works out in the end, which I'm still skeptical about -- I'm yet to be convinced that Bush gives a rats-ass about the people of Iraq.

However, having said that establishing a better standard of life for the ordinary Iraqi-in-the-street is a noble goal, I don't think that invading a sovereign country is the right way to go about it.

Particularly when you then joke about the lies that you knowingly told to your electorate to persuade them that it was the right thing to do.

... not a deliberate ego-driven personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill his daddy.

This is the emotional reason to which I was referring. The economic reason is obvious, but I did neglect to mention a third reason for the war in Iraq: Roger took up the slack there.

Bravo, Peter.

Take a look at these pictures from today's Iraq deaths, and tell me again how we are doing the right thing. Tell me again how we are protecting and freeing these people. Tell me again what is remotely funny about this?

Warning; disturbing and NSFW pictures
http://uk.search.news.yahoo.com/search/photos_ukie?p=fallujah&nice=fallujah

This seriously pisses me off. And their blood is on Bush's hands.

In short, even if we accept the premise that invading Iraq was a good thing -- pour encourager les autres -- the mixed messages coming from the Bush administration don't actually tell "les autres" what they're being "encourager"-ed to do. Stop smoking in public places, maybe?

Ah, so that's how we're getting Ireland to solve their terrorism problem!

> I've linked this before, but it may be that Bush's only mis-
> step has been to be President at a time when for some
> reason a nation of Captain Renaults are feeling shocked --
> shocked -- that politicians are lying to them. Which part of
> the phrase "two-faced duplicitous lizards the bloody lot of
> them" are people suddenly not understanding?

Bush II ran on honesty and "character" last time around.

That makes it doubly...er...duplicitous.

-brendan

doubly...er...duplicitous

You mean "duplicitouslier"?