One War Widow's Meeting With President Bush

[nathan1977]

and, ultimately, all this is simply speculation and inference -- but i think there is enough evidence to surmize an educated guess.

Or in your case, a foregone conclusion.

also, the lack of any change in strategy, and the absence of any clearly articulated goal, demonstrates, to me, a lack of concern with all the death on the ground.

The loss of life, though tragic, pales in comparison with previous wars. I'm personally more concerned with the Iraqi loss of life and the civil war issue, but I'm not sure whether the American presence there is serving as an incendiary presence or a controlling one. (A topic for a different thread, for people more knowledgable than myself.) If we, in fact, are keeping the sides (barely) in check, then I suppose the American loss of life can be seen by some in a larger context.

i'd point to stem-cells as a great example of his personal faith in action.

An entirely different issue, and one with much thornier ethical and political implications for Americans (as we have discussed elsewhere). We were talking specifically about the war.

 

[Irvine511]

Or in your case, a foregone conclusion.

then let's point to the evidence that shows he doesn't place too much emphasis on his faith when it comes to decision making. let's point to evidence that he's most concerned with evidence and facts, rather than guts, instinct, and faith. let's point to the evidence that shows he's made a good decision (any good decision) regarding both the choice to go to war and then, most especially and tragically, the conduct of the post-war.



[q]The loss of life, though tragic, pales in comparison with previous wars. I'm personally more concerned with the Iraqi loss of life and the civil war issue, but I'm not sure whether the American presence there is serving as an incendiary presence or a controlling one. (A topic for a different thread, for people more knowledgable than myself.) If we, in fact, are keeping the sides (barely) in check, then I suppose the American loss of life can be seen by some in a larger context.[/q]


sorry, the whole "WW2 was worse" doesn't hold any water. this was a war of choice/i], it had nothing to do with the safety and security of the United States, it was sold to the American people as a cakewalk, as well as necessary to prevent all those mushroom clouds leveling the Upper East Side. this was never pitched as WW3, or even Vietnam 2 (which it was) or EVEN Gulf War 2. remember -- they were going to throw roses, greet us as liberators, and the oil was going to pay for reconstruction (i point you to various Cheney "Meet the Press" appearances). 2,600+ americans have died for reasons and rationale that, if now known to the American public, they would have never, ever supported in numbers large enough to make a voluntary invasion politically possible.

i share your concerns about a Civil War, because there's already one going on. i think what prevents 30,000 dead iraqis a month (instead of 3,000) is the presence of American troops. i do think a quick withdrawal would be a mistake (a position i do not share with what might be called "the left"). but i'm really not sure what else to do.

An entirely different issue, and one with much thornier ethical and political implications for Americans (as we have discussed elsewhere). We were talking specifically about the war.

you had asked me for other examples, so i gave you one, though i didn't realize you were looking for more faith-based decisions about the war (though the belief in WMD's was certainly one of faith, though we might more accurately call it gullability in this non-religious context). and we can contrast this with Jimmy Carter, who was extremely careful not to use scripture in public.

when you say "Saddam Hussein is evil, and compared to him we are pure and good" you are presenting a battle in righteous, God vs. Satan terms where the enemy isn't a person or a nation, but a monster to be vanquished.