Replies

What good has Bush done for us by his nation building in Iraq that is costing soldiers their lives? Please don't tell me he is "fighting terrorism". You fight terrorism by "influencing" the leaders of enemy nations, not by killing common foot soldiers on the ground. Tell me, what good has he done?

What? You mean, Cindy, that killing well over 100,000 terrorists on THEIR home turf isn't a good thing? Geez Cindy come on now!!

Mike, you know better than that.

If you REALLY wanted to fight terrorism, you go after the leaders of the enemy. You go after nations that harbor the terrorists. Fighting common thugs on the ground does not "fight terrorism".

Bush continues to send billions of dollars as direct cash grants to enemy nations, and he also keeps funding the World Bank and the IMF, which sends BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to enemy nations.

It is well know that Iran and Syria are sending in the foot soldiers that are killing our troops, and sending in the IEDs. Bush is doing nothing against Syria and Iran to stop this.

Marines are trained to be warriors and to bring destruction upon enemies. They are being used in Iraq as policemen with PC constraints placed upon them. If anybody wants to stand up and look so stupid as to claim that we can win the war on terror by fighting common thugs on the ground in Iraq, stand up and look stupid then--be my guest.

It is not the strategic goal I disagree on--we MUST wage war against terrorists. I think Bush's tactics stink. $300 billion later, we are no better off than before.

A better tactic to wage the War on Terror is to 1] use air power to bomb nations that harbor terrorists into submission, and 2] STOP ALL FUNDING, grants, loans and charity/aid to any nation even remotely connected to terrorist activity, and 3] use assination as a weapon against leaders of nations harboring and aiding terrorists. Many American lives would be saved if this were Bush's tactic, and the War on Terror would get far better results.