So you are of the opinion that the US is not under threat from Iraq either now of in the forseeable future?

For me, it's mostly about the idea of making a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation. Washington holds America up as a standard-bearer for the world, and I think we ought to be terribly careful about setting this standard. The fact that Bush's own administration can't even build a consensus on the putative Iraqi threat says a lot to me. I have seen nothing to indicate that military action is necessary. I realize we're dealing with an administration that likes to play things close to the vest, but really--they can do better than quoting imaginary reports and contradicting the findings of the agencies they're relying on for their data.

I also find the idea of the whole thing suspicious. Even if you don't consider the long family history here, and even if you don't consider that perpetual war is politically expedient for a sitting president, just take a look at our plans for post "regime change" Iraq. We don't have the funds or infrastructure to rebuild Afghanistan, but we've got the maintenance of Iraq's oil fields covered.

How do you explain the fact that now 70% to 75% of the people now support the presidents action toward Iraq.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from. The latest Zogby polls indicate that 70% of the country feel that Hussein is a threat to American safety, or a leader whose policies are anti-American. Big surprise. But when it comes to war, those numbers drop considerably:

Support or oppose sending son or daughter to war to remove Saddam Hussein? YES : 45 NO : 46

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if there were hundreds of American casualties? YES : 41 NO: 50

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if there were thousands of American casualties? YES : 39 NO : 50

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if it meant thousands of Iraqi military casualties? YES : 51 NO : 39

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if it meant thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties? YES : 38 NO : 51

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if it included sending in hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops? YES : 45 NO : 46

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if it were only comprised of bombing the country? YES : 36 NO : 52

Support or oppose a war against Iraq if the U.S. waged it without UN or international support? YES : 40 NO : 52

With a +/- error margin of 3.2%, Zogby is an even more reliable source of data than Gallup. These numbers refute your claim, which didn't even have anything to do with the statement you were responding to.

Is Bush as good a speaker as Clinton? No. Is Bush an idot? No.
Is he more trustworthy than say Clinton. Absolutely.

Why do you feel this way? Do you know anything about Bush? I'm genuinely curious. Even a cursory examination of his public record is enough to let you know he's far from trustworthy.

I have watched the complaceny that the U.S has slid into over the past year. Had Bush asked for this on November of last year it would have been a landslide but we waited a year. He said in early addresses to the nation that this would not be a quick engagement. I guess some just thought he was kidding

I have also been watching the U.S. for the past year, and if anything, it seems people are (albeit marginally) more aware of what's going on than they were before. Bush gets his landslides the way shrewd politicians do--by expending political capital. He happens to be in a unique situation, where he can paint his detractors as un-American and they're actually afraid of the charge. He's milking it like a farmer with three hands. The merits of his positions rarely enter the debate.

You are asking for the impossible here. It always comes down to politics and elections. It comed to retaining the power and what is involved in keeping it

I think you're trying to pass yourself off as a cynical realist here, but wow. It's "impossible" to expect elected leaders to do their jobs? What a bunch of hooey. What happened in Washington this week was a disgrace. Just another disgrace, to be sure, but a disgrace nonetheless. For that idiot Daschle to say he had misgivings, but was voting yes because it's important to present a unified front--utter bullshit.  

 Do you have any facts or figures to support this statement . So is this like 2% of those with combat experience or 50%?

I think he was describing the attitudes of those within the administration, not Americans in general.