If a war is not justified, then I agree. However, given what we knew about Iraq before the war, the wise thing to do was to act to protect us and remove the threat. I'd hate to have a President that knew there was a probability of an attack, and gamble with the safety of our country by not acting upon it. Hindsight is 20/20, so we can't judge Bush on evidence we've discovered after the decisions were made. I guess Bush takes a lot of heat for not admitting a mistake there, but once again, decisions aren't made in hindsight.

Here's an article that wrestles with the same dilemma.

http://www.equip.org/free/DE233.htm

First, you did not fully read my post. I mentioned that Bush said he'd do it all over again, even knowing what he knows now --that Iraq wasn't a threat. That destroys your argument. One could also use your argument to support stem-cell research.

This is not about the war, this is about inconsistency.

Second, I question why it is believe everything the president has said regarding his motives despite some evidence he may not be fully honest.

Welcome to the church's revolution, Drina. :)

Yes, even still, many believe going into Iraq and removing the threat was the right thing to do. Don't forget the nature of the dictatorship that was removed. It was the definition of evil. Many mass graves have been found...including women and children. Regardless of what the news media may show about opinions over there, they are thankful that regime is gone.

I don't need to be told what the Iraqis think; I know several people from Iraq, including Iraqis and American soldiers, and they have affirmed that the Iraqi response is a mixed bag. The Iraqis are angry at America for the current misery. For obvious reasons I'm willing to believe them, not Bush.

You still didn't address the inconsistency. Bush says it's not okay to use a discarded embryo to help prevent misery and death, but it's okay to dismember a five year-old child for the same reason. Some anti-stem-cell conservatives have called for carpet bombing. Where's the consistency in that?

Answer: there is none. This is politics, and it is hypocritical.

Thanks Penn!

>I don't need to be told what the Iraqis think; I know several people from Iraq, including Iraqis and American soldiers, and they have affirmed that the Iraqi response is a mixed bag.

If we exclusively watch the news media, we get doom and gloom - no positives. We need a balance.

True - hypocrisy is part of politics. There are no absolutes in life...except for God's word. So there are no perfect candidates, no perfect parties, no perfect platforms. We have to sort it out the best we can in light of God's word.

>Some anti-stem-cell conservatives have called for carpet bombing. Where's the consistency in that?

Correct. That's not consistent - and it's foolish. The administration is not listening to them either - thankfully!

>Bush says it's not okay to use a discarded embryo to help prevent misery and death, but it's okay to dismember a five year-old child for the same reason.

So let's tell Bush he needs to be consistent on the embryo issue instead of giving support to those that are in favor of opening the doors for more embryonic stem cell research.

Oy, I'm not sure how much more I have to simplify this in order for it to be understood. Read... read carefully.

If Bush is to be consistent, he would denounce his own war and admit his hypocrisy. He's against using discarded stem cells to do life-saving research, but he's totally fine with killing thousands of innocent human beings.

You seem to keep hedging around the issue here, and don't seem to understand that in the case of Iraq, he threw out his stem cell rationale and made up another one... an opposite one.

Kill stem cells to save lives = bad
Kill innocent Iraqis to save lives = okay

This inconsistency can't be justified. Don't even bother.

Have you been listening to 'Air America' again? :)

We can disagree about foreign policy and the war on terror, but I don't think you can say 'he's totally fine with killing thousands of innocent human beings' or that 'life-saving research is around the corner with stem cell research.' Of course the irony is that embryonic stem cell research is less promising to scientists than adult stem cell research. For some reason, the focus is on embryonic stem cells.

Actually, I don't get Air America in Cleveland. I hope to, someday. But that's an interesting strategy of deflecting attention away from the issue at hand. To take a page out of your play book, this is the same strategy that right-wing hate groups like the KKK use, and that worries me. Remember that line?

The "conservative" platform goes as follows:

Using discarded stem cells = bad

Killing thousands in Iraq = okay

No matter how you try to spin in, this is still an inconsistency glossed over all too conveniently by American conservatives. Christians and conservatives elsewhere in the world have called out our hypocrisy, but we here in the states ingore it, and fight for Bush tooth and nail in spite of it.

I'm not surprised that so many are determined to defend Bush's reputation no matter what, even if it means contradicting themselves. I wouldn't expect anything less, really.

Good night.

Some insight on the electability of Bush's contradictions