After seeing some interesting comments from everywhere about Barack, I'd pose a question, why not Barack? If we're speaking on the war. I give him credit for seeing what he did. I don't have anything good to say about President Bush. Deemed to go down as the worst President in history, he lied and continues to lie to the American people. His administration has been the worst in history. If it were the time to go to war, he should at least told the truth on why we were going.
I support the troops just as much as anyone else, but how we got there was indeed a lie. During the last year of this presidency, most of the updates from Iraq are being censored. Barack at least stood up and voiced his opinion. Something that is supposed to be a free right. He is the only one that didn't make the mistake that everyone with MORE experience did make. If this country were not so stereotypical, what color he is would not make a difference. If a pink man made things better than George Bush, I'd vote for him.
For the first time in history, we have a woman, African American and a Hispanic with a chance. And nobody can say that things have been just peachy the last eight years. Bush has had so many people resign from his administration that it must have set a record. So why not change? Maybe it's time that this country had some.
Just because a woman or minority can become president doesn't mean that's why we should vote for them. Personally I think Barrack and Hilary are the wrong people for the job with the wrong solutions to some problems.
Bush isn't the worst president in history, Hoover wasnt' great, Bill was atrocious in my opinion and Andrew Jackson was downright awful.
I have to agree. I think people are more concerned about doing something that is going to be big in history over making a vote for the person that is going to get our country straight. We cannot have 4 (or 8) more years of indolence in the White House. If Hillary or Barack ( or McCain) would actually do a good job then I do not have a problem with them; however, I think that history can wait.
If you knew a thing about government you would know that congress is the cause for why we went to war. The house of representatives and the senate all voted for a desicion and Bush just inforced it. I think Bush did a supurb job for what came up during his presidency and under the pressure of the attacks that we all know of, I for one think he did a better job than most for a good eight years. If Obama wins the presidential election all the work that Bush has accomplished will be all for nothing. Just compare the death toll from Bush to Clinton for eight years and you will see the War on Iraq's death toll isn't as bad as when Clinton was president when we weren't even in war.
Bush declared war without Congress. Congress has been trying to stop him, but not enough of the people in Congress are voting to override Bush's vetoes (only need majority to pass the first time, then need something like 2/3 of all Congress to override vetoes).
If Obama wins the presidential election all the work that Bush has accomplished will be all for nothing.
What work? Assassinating a leader and throwing the country in turmoil as we occupy it and fail miserably at turning it into a mini-America? Enforcing double-standards as we attack some countries that supposedly have weapons of mass destruction and/or nuclear weapons programs while building and reinforcing other countries that otherwise have the exact same weapons?
Everyone (well, except Rudy, but I think he's out of the race now) has said they're going to pull out of Iraq. So regardless of who gets the presidency, there's a good chance that they're going to "ruin all the work Bush did."
Just compare the death toll from Bush to Clinton for eight years and you will see the War on Iraq's death toll isn't as bad as when Clinton was president when we weren't even in war.
What death toll are you referring to?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
They might be going to the death toll in Somalia since that was the only war we got into under Clinton and even then it was at the most I think 17 killed? Or something like that, I might only be thinking about operation Irene.
Either way, I agree once again with all of what you've said, dragonwolf.