Bush's final State of the Union address focuses on the familiar

President Bush's final State-of-the-Union address is expected to reflect the political reality that there is little room for any big ideas out of the White House during his remaining months in office.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino says anything new and major is "just not realistic."

to post 35.

I realize causualties are down.
here is a handy listing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

It just seems like Bush threw his presidency away,
for the Iraq occupation ...
Republicans lose Congress.
the 2008 Republicans running for president
are dreadful (only one I liked is Fred)

with the money spent on the war, we could have
built enough ‘coal-to-liquids’ synthetic fuel
plants, to cover US petroleum use.
very sad.

I understand your frustration. But I think it is a mistake to pin it on one man, or on the war in Iraq.

It seems, by all reports, that Federal, non-defense spending went out of control. Did the Democrats try to slow spending and reduce earmarks? Of course not. Both parties are to blame. Resistance to overspending came primarily from a few conservative Republicans in Congress. Bush could have done more, but it was Congress that spent too much.

We have plenty of energy solutions but we don’t pursue them due to wildly exaggerated fears from environmentalists. Nuclear, coal, ANWR, offshore oil and gas, we have all we need and much more. Blame the environmentalists.

As for the war, what would it have cost if a so called dirty (highly radioactive) bomb had gone off in a major US city, rendering it uninhabitable for thousands of years? How many September 11th have been prevented?

This war is just like the cold war. It is ours to win or lose. Reagan-Reagan-Bush and we defeated the vast Russian empire. Had we had Carter-Carter-Dukakis, we might have lost the cold war. Everything that has happened in Iraq is necessary if we are to defeat radical Islam, bring peace to the middle east and avoid losing to the Islamic supremacists. Be resolute.

to post 44

what would the first President Bush have done,
if Saddam had been tossed out after the Gulf War?

move in and stay for 20 years?

The first President Bush did not toss Saddam out. The second President Bush did.

I’m not faulting either. The times were different, and sequential. The second President Bush saw that his father’s restraint, and President Clinton’s restraint through two terms, were not sufficient for dealing with Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden, or radical Islam. Bush has taken care of Hussein. OBL’s movement is weakened.

Bush was right to consider the battle of Iraq to be a part of a larger war. But he has not properly identified and named the enemy. The Democrats and the press war against our President. They have complicated his efforts greatly and deserve the harshest criticism. LTG Sanchez was right: we are not fighting as a nation committed to the fight. Reading MSM reports on his speech, many thought he was criticizing the President. But he was criticizing the press and the Democrats in Congress.

I missed the 2008 STOU address.

Was Hillary Herself doing her usual rolling of eyes, looking bored, etc.? How did the rest of the Dhims act and react?

Were they polit or as usual rude?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.