Your argument about the Iraq War ignores a key fact: Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, nor for that matter did Muslim immigrants to the US. W started an unnecessary war that killed more Americans than died on 9/11, along with a vastly greater number of Iraqis. That war is one of the reasons W is the worst president in US history.phillies4evr wrote: don't even go there with me about the war that started after 9/11. All those thousands of American citizens lost their lives that day would agree that we had a retaliate somehow for what was done. The Moslems came into our country, became citizens here, and then they did what they did for no reason at all. It was rumored that this was done to get back at the first Bush...... it was our only option but to go overseas and retaliate for all the damage that had been done here and all the lives that were lost. Do you believe that we should have just sat back and did nothing at all? If your family members have been killed for no reason at all, we would you suggest? Would you suggest that we do nothing and let this happen over and over again? The second Bush had no choice but to send us to war to show these Moslems and others who were involved that we mean business; we were coming there to do our job the way they had done to us. In my lifetime, the best president was Reagan. That is my opinion and just let it stand. I can tell you are a stout Democrat and so you feel you can lambash all the Republicans. Wake up and smell the roses! Obama took a situation that was starting to become a critical one, and he hasn't even been president for two years and look at the state of our economy! So now, can you say for sure that this is all the Republicans fault?????? do you get the Rasmussen polls in your e-mail. If you do or even if you don't, only 28% of the citizens of this country who were polled are in favor of what Obama has done. That number is sickening and yet its true. This will be my last post on here as it is stressing me out too much because I have an illness in which I have to stay calm. So be it as it may, just read the Rasmussen reports and you will see the truth in that report is always accurate! They declared long before the election that the tea party would win and as a tea party activist, a strong victory was to be had on election Day. so, KUDDOS to the tea party!
Regarding the economy, it's not clear what you think Obama should have done differently. Most Tea Partiers opposed the stimulus package and the bailouts, but the economy would have been far worse without those measures. Obama isn't perfect: his economic plan was too moderate, as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman explained in a recent column:
Rasmussen polls are not trustworthy due to their Republican bias, as Nate Silver explained.Mr. Obama’s problem wasn’t lack of focus; it was lack of audacity. At the start of his administration he settled for an economic plan that was far too weak.
...
But he chose a seemingly safer course: a medium-size stimulus package that was clearly not up to the task. And that’s not 20/20 hindsight. In early 2009, many economists, yours truly included, were more or less frantically warning that the administration’s proposals were nowhere near bold enough.
If hearing contrary views stresses you out, maybe you should avoid political forums. After all, I'm calmly expressing my sincere beliefs, which I developed while following current events since I was a teenager. However, it's probably better for your intellectual growth to be exposed to a wide range of viewpoints.
