We did? Gung ho on Afghanistan, for sure. But Iraq?
I didn't see that, hell yeah, get 'em boys attitude, coming from the great unwashed.

A lot of people were convinced the government (Bush/State Dept/Pentagon/CIA), knows more than we do, so if they say we must, we must. Then of course there's the old saw.... even if you don't like the war, you're a scum sucking dog if you don't support our troops. That's a backhanded way of coercing people into not being vocal or demonstrating against the war.:(

From Without Precedent by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton: Deja vue Vietnam. Nixon, for whom lying was typical and was justified to kill so many American soldiers, also insisted he had a “secret plan to end the war". Some politicians are so often liars that anyone agreeing with lying politicians (without posting reams of supporting facts) were accurately accused of also lying. Good thing so many whistle blowers and leakers (also known as patriotic Americans) are telling the press the truth. And still, some are so foolish as to blindly believe George Jr only because “he must know more”.

First indication that he must be lying. "I believe god has choosen me to be president".

George Jr's greatest accomplishment: lie to American religious extremists - and they believed he was one of them. Lie without providing supporting facts and numbers and we will believe he must know more. Reality and history says otherwise when the politician has a history of lying. As Kean noted, he already knew those facts from the newspapers. But a lying politiician needs us to believe a myth about secrets.

W
 

W took oratory to another level. As the first CEO President, he leveraged his unique intellectual capital to add value to the political discourse that shapes our Democracy. He gave 110% and really stepped up to the presidential plate. In retrospect, his approach was a no-brainer, a slam dunk; but at the time only W and his cronies knew that. We can now look at his past and ongoing legacy as a streak of white light that cut and continues to cut through the history and future of American politics and governance, illuminating all the great things that America is and will continue to be.

Excuse me, but was the preceding intended as sarcasm? Because if it wasn't, you're beginning to scare me.:worried:

George W. Bush's most significant accomplishment was getting re-elected. This was due to political forces outside of direct control rather than leadership. It demonstrated to Americans that most of them can be fooled most of the time.

George W. Bush's most considerable failure was causing his political party to lose control of the Congress during his second term. This was due to a failure in leadership rather than political forces outside of direct control. It demonstrated to Americans that just because they put someone in a leadership position doesn't mean the person will live up to it.

See the newpaper entitled Move Over, Hoover in this post.

Scary
 

Completely sarcastic. But pretty good, don't cha think? Almost sounded real. You see, that's the key, to "sound" authentic and like you mean it.

That's the power of corporate- (CEO) speak. Black becomes white and eyes glaze over. And America drops trou and takes it up the arse. Just words. Amazing.

You're a regular Stephen Colbert.:thumb:

Truthiness
 

Now THAT is a compliment. He's a true American (cue screaching eagle).

Thanks Mr. Levy.

NoBoxes, you were almost right. You'd've been all the way right had you named the correct President: Clinton demonstrated most of the electorate can be fooled often enough. But what he and his were selling, I wasn't buying -- I was smart enough never to vote for that man.

if by "outside of direct control" you mean "democrats failed to put forth a viable candidate", then yes you are correct. if the D's had run a candidate that was different from Bush in any positive, meaningful way he'd have run away with the race. instead americans were faced with an evil we know vs. evil we don't know race.

Maybe thats why the "3rd" parties are growing so much in popularity. Too many people are disgusted with the far left and the far right without and "real" candidates to choose from. Perhaps if both parties were truly more interested in leading our country than stuffing their pockets, we'd have some tough decisions to make - like "Which of these is the better candidate?" I much prefer that to "Which one will eff up less?" I've been so disheartened by both the Republican and Democratic parties and their lapdogs that simply spew BS about how great or more idyllic their party is and how awful the other. Ours is by far the best nation on this planet (or any other) and it sickens me to know that those we entrust to lead it repeatedly disappoint and abuse the power we entrust them with.

hang on....just for clarification, do you consider the Dems to be 'far left'?

No, Dana they are the right wing -