Originally Posted by host

Onetime2,
Bush ordered our troops into a war of choice. When Bush staged his carrrier photo op,<br> there were 138 dead troops as a result of Bush's decision to send those troops to war in Iraq. <br>As of Sept. 25, (17 months later), there were
1043 dead troops, or 905 post "mission accomplished" dead U.S. troops.

The likelyhood for signifigant further U.S. military casualties appears imminent
in a continuing conflict of undetermined length. As the initial justifications for
this war that were articulated by Bush, proved to have little or no merit,
Bush was forced by the facts to admit that the mission in Iraq was not the
defense of the U.S. from an imminent and growing threat posed by Saddam,
but instead was an invasion and occupation that was about
"getting rid of a brutal dicatator", and bringing freedom and democracy
to the Iraqi people.

My wife and I have a son in the army, and perhaps
because of that, we can put ourselves in the place of a family who has lost
a loved one in Bush's war of choice. Your earlier comment, an inquiry as to
Kerry's position on Iraq back on May 1, 2003, seems irrelevant. Bush brought
the Iraq war plan to the U.S. legislature. Bush defined the threat level to the
U.S. that Saddam posed. Bush had the most intelligence information and the
advice of experts; certainly much more than Kerry, a legislator could possibly
have had personally available. Bush also, in early 2003 had something that he
has completely squandered now.......he had credibility
because of the perception, domestically and internationally, that he would rise to a capability to confront the attacks of 9-11.
Kerry represents the people of Massachusetts. He voted on behalf of his constituents to back Bush.

When and where does the buck stop, in your
opinion, Onetime2? If you were part of a family that lost a young soldier in Bush's war, how do you think your idea, that "Publicly admitting mistakes and learning from them can be two very different things", and Bush's answer, "When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely.", would play at that American family's dinner table, the one with the permanently empty chair, on this coming Thanksgiving day?

Bush says, that even knowing what
he knows now, he would do nothing differently if he had to decide whether
to invade Iraq, or land on that aircraft carrier for a photo op. Maybe for Bush
and for you, the deaths of 1043 other peoples' family members who joined
the U.S. military to serve and to protect their country, isn't an outrageous
price to pay for removing Saddam and for bringing freedom to the Iraq people. <br>I am outraged because I believe Bush put our troops in harms way when it
was not absolutely necessary, and now he will not accept any responsibility
for their deaths. He demonstrates no personal sacrrfice; his vacation rate is
the same 40 plus percent of his time in office as it was pre 9-11. Bush made
Iraq an important enough issue and mission for our troops to die for. Bush
will not admit to wanting to change anything he has done in Iraq, even with
the benefit of hindsight. Bush is either hollow and unfeeling, or he is <br>misleading the American people. He cheapens the deaths of our troops by
not showing any inclination to have avoided some of them having to die in
the past, or in the future. My outrage at Bush for failing to take responsibility
for his actions is understandable, given these circumstances and the cost
in blood, money and presitge to our country. What motivates you to defend
Bush so often, and try to shift the buck over to people like Franks and Kerry?
Are the lives of other family's children worth so little to you that you advocate <br>their sacrifice in Bush's cause in Iraq? Can you honestly say that
Bush would commit his own child to the cause of bringing freedom to the
Iraqi people, or that the life of your child is worth the sacrifice that you
apparently can justify when that sacrafice falls to another American family?