On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:10:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Uh, when your policies are wrong, and you keep on promulgating them, and
they keep on delivering death and destruction, and you keep on
promulgating them, then perhaps it is time to come up with some new
policies.


Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what
objective criteria do you make this judgement call?

Dave


You've been living in a cave the last year?

That didn't answer the question. What factual, OBJECTIVE criteria can
you cite that proves that the president's policies were "wrong"?

After 9/11, enhanced security policies were enacted. A new department
of homeland security was created. To date, there have been no further
attacks on U.S. soil. To call this policy a failure, there would have
to be another attack in spite of the new policies.

The war in Iraq was won in a matter of weeks. Saddam was deposed, and
eventually captured, his son's killed. Most of Saddam's underlings
were also captured. The Iraqi people were freed from tyrannical
oppression. While it's true that keeping the peace has been somewhat
tumultuous, that is to be expected when the desperation of the
terrorists are hightailed as the date for the transition of power
looms ahead. How is this a failure? It would be a failure if we pulled
out now and let the insurgents win.

Sure there was a cost. Both monetarily and in human lives. But any war
has these costs, and they have never historically been a major
consideration when the greater good is factored into the big picture.

Dave