"History will judge him more favorably than his contemporaries." An observer said this of Harry Truman. The same thing might be said of Geroge W. Bush, a president leaving office with record low approval rating. It was only many years later did history reverse the verdict, placing Truman among the greatest presidents, whose policy had shaped the world in ways few of his contemporaries had dared to envision.   

=======================================================

History Will Judge
__

By Charles Krauthammer,
The Washington Post
Friday, September 19, 2008; A19


For the past 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt -- have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.

In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence -- not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.

But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

'My Values Didn't Change'
In Bush, Loyalists See a Good Man Who Has Gotten a Bad Rap

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 2, 2008; A01


On a cold, gray morning a week before Election Day, President Bush briefly emerged from the White House for an unannounced visit to the headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Southeast Washington.

Outside the RNC building, Bush continued to face record-low approval ratings and a presidential campaign focused on his failings. But inside an overflowing conference room, he was greeted with roaring applause as he urged his fellow Republicans to keep pushing for the finish line.

"His general message was to thank the staff for everything we've been doing and encourage us to keep working hard all the way through Election Day," said one person who attended the closed event. "It was upbeat and very exciting."

Even for a declared optimist, Bush has appeared remarkably sanguine in this season of discontent. The economy is melting down, his own party has shunned him and Tuesday's election is shaping up as a searing rebuke to his eight years in office.

Yet according to allies inside and outside the White House, Bush's mood remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it.

"His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us," said Kevin Sullivan, Bush's communications director. "There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and which he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

None of this would matter, of course, if not for Bush's deep and abiding unpopularity. Bush has not commanded approval from a majority of the nation since early 2005, making him arguably the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s. A Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll last week put Bush's approval rating at 24 percent and found that McCain had made little headway in separating himself from Bush or his policies.

It's not for lack of trying. For the first time in recent memory, a sitting president has effectively sat out the presidential race, avoiding public appearances on behalf of McCain and other Republicans and raising far less money than usual in private fundraisers. Bush voted for McCain by absentee ballot rather than voting in person in Texas, as he has for the last three elections, and officials say he plans to spend election night at the White House rather than at a rally or some campaign-related event.

"This is unprecedented for a president to be this invisible during a campaign," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "This is what happens when you have a 25 percent approval rating."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday that plenty of Republicans wanted Bush to host fundraisers, but the president decided to focus on the economic crisis in recent weeks. Because of ongoing news events, Fratto added, "he's had to be a lot more visible than we would have liked during the most intense period of the campaign."

Aides say privately that Bush long ago made peace with his low approval ratings, which have persisted despite significant improvements in Iraq, the original source of his polling woes. Some current and former aides argue that Bush's unpopularity has made it easier for him to push ahead with difficult decisions, such as a series of dramatic interventions into the financial markets that have angered conservatives over the past two months.

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."

Ari Fleischer, one of Bush's former press secretaries, said that although Bush is "not prone to talk about legacy," he and his closest advisers are confident that history "will remember him well."

"Would he like to be more popular?" Fleischer added. "Of course he would. Of course it bugs him. But it doesn't guide him or drive him."

There is little outward sign of irritation from Bush, who has maintained a sense of good cheer in many of his less-formal public appearances this year. During a celebration honoring Theodore Roosevelt's 150th birthday last week, Bush joked: "People ask me, do you ever see any of the ghosts of your predecessors here in the White House? I said, 'No, I quit drinking.' "

That enduring, frat-boy enthusiasm is exactly the sort of thing that riles his detractors, but supporters say Bush's optimism has been central to his political survival. "When you're inside, and the president is so optimistic, you're not paying as much attention to the noise outside," said Candida "Candi" Wolff, a former White House legislative affairs director. "It keeps everybody focused."

Bush's public schedule over the past few months has included a parade of farewell meetings with friendly foreign leaders, from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Bush has also let down his guard on a few occasions, showing traces of the kind of nostalgia he normally eschews.

In early October, for example, Bush made a side trip to one of his boyhood homes in Midland, Tex., which has been turned into a presidential historic site. Standing in front of the modest rambler that housed two future presidents, Bush recalled a farewell rally that he attended in Midland on his way to Washington in 2001.

"I said, 'You know, I'm not going to change as a person because of politics or Washington' -- that's what I said when I left," Bush said. "I think they appreciate that. I want them to know that, you know, even though I had to deal with a lot of tough issues, that I'm still the same person that they knew before and that, you know, I'm wiser, more experienced, but my heart and my values didn't change."

布什离任倒数百天 以杜鲁门总统为参考执政模式

10月14日是布什离任倒数100天。

布什不希望有人觉得他不称职。他讨厌这种想法，为什么别人会觉得他做得不好呢？他知道自己正在做着什么，他正在做着他自认是“正确的事情”。

“他坚信历史会站在他这一边。即便历史不是站在他这一边，他也永远不会知道。”　——布什代表布伦特

他对于领导的观点是，顶住压力做正确的事。

布什在历史上的定位很难说得清。批评家能给布什列出一系列“罪状”：他将国家引进了一场错误的战争；将美国在世界范围内的关系搞得一塌糊涂；严重破坏了美国经济；浪费预算余额却替他那些有钱有势的朋友们减税；新奥尔良水灾时他还在玩着他的吉他；利用政治影响司法部门；奉承石油公司；“窃听”全世界；将无罪之人关押到现代集中营——关塔那摩监狱……

而表扬他的人则为布什罗列了一长串的“功绩”：他使阿富汗和伊拉克6000万人脱离暴政并在当地传播开民主的种子；他在国内减少税收；通过助学计划让公立学校引进更多义务性；将医疗保险的范围扩大到处方药；建立了两个新的保守最高法院；使美国在“9·11”事件后保持安全……

而布什是怎么看待他自己呢？

布什的一位前高级顾问格尔森说：“他确实是将杜鲁门总统在任期最后一段时间内一些做法视为自己的参考，杜鲁门模式强调的是‘不获认可的英雄成绩’，或许‘英雄成绩’用的不是很恰当，应该是说‘不获认可的勇气’吧。 这非常符合布什本人的做事方法和自我的性格。他对于领导的观点是，顶住压力做正确的事。”

布什的朋友和顾问们经常用“3F”来形容布什平静外表下的“奔腾不安”——信仰（FAITH）、家庭（FAMILY）和朋友（FRIENDS）。曾为布什工作过的科纳威说：“他有着根深蒂固的基督教信仰，他相信拥有自己应该做好的角色，他也相信他所做的一切都是上帝的安排。”

他在誉维护自己的“声”上越来越积极好斗。

6月底时，布什曾邀请一些保守派学者和作家一起进行谈话，他发现自己处于受攻击的位置上。他的不满在麦凯恩的顾问布特提出一个问题后变得更加大了。布特问：“很多人认为，你在第二任期内与第一任期相比改变了不少。”

“这太荒谬了。”布什打断了他的问题。

但是，布特继续向他提问并罗列种种细节：伊朗、朝鲜、埃及和中东的民主问题。一些支持者认为布什没像以前一样强硬，他太过于渴求获得，甚至在还没达到他所要求的条件之前便妥协了。

“这种说法是错误的。”他尖锐地予以反驳，看起来非常生气，“我从第一天开始就一直在为此而努力，这是我所做过的所有事情中的一部分。”

随着他的总统任期即将结束，布什在维护他的“声誉”上变得越来越积极好斗。他不希望其他人肆意判断他所做过的那些决策。他经常与一些像布特那样提出相反意见的人争吵。在他进行他总统任期中最后一次中东之行前，据说有人进行静坐示威，对此布什还积极地与人争论此事的真实性。

5月，他曾对一名埃及记者说：“我认为历史最终会认可乔治·布什确实是看清了中东地区的威胁并做出了合适的举动，也确实是引领了中东地区的民主进程，并使中东人民决定自己国家的命运和民主运动。”上月在接受一名泰国记者采访时，他又形容自己道：“这是一个愿意接受充满挑战的工作并不会逃避他自认为是正确事情的人。”

他不用再刻意用不带口音的英语说“我是总统”。

但随着他进入总统任期的最后时光，他发现自己正处于一段释放挫败感的经历中。

布什的朋友们说，62岁的布什近期变得越来越放松，也开始越发喜欢开玩笑，有时还会在照相机前面跳上一小段舞。他看到了总统任期的结束，也开始计划起后白宫时代的生活，还在达拉斯购置了新房子。一名得克萨斯的老友说：“你可以听到他的得州口音又回来了，他将不用再刻意用不带口音的英语说‘我是总统’了。”

他非常热爱健身，平时在工作日中，他的时间计划安排人都会在每天下午给他留出一个小时进行健身运动。周末时，他会在联邦情报局的工作人员陪同下，在华盛顿郊外进行两个小时的自行车锻炼。有时他会让陪同人员骑着自行车跟在他后面，这样他可以幻想自己是单独出来骑自行车。

布什将其执政的时期称为“一段快乐的经历”，这听上去有点刺耳。一段使人满意的经历、追求重要目标或者至关重要的经历，感觉更像是形容一段历史时期。但那是“快乐的经历”吗？这段经历充满了悲叹、战争和政治攻击，这还“快乐”吗？5月时，布什在一次论坛上尝试着做一番解释：“人们都知道，总会有美好的时光和艰难的时光共存，我对自己的原则和价值抱着强硬的态度，我是一个非常乐观的人。”

他要买房子，不过这回他说要听老婆的。

随着时间渐渐逝去，顾问们说，布什也在逐渐展示着自己的渴求。他开始在公众场合跟孩子们聊天，到俄亥俄州跟91岁的老妇一起合影。一份统计显示，布什今年参加了19项体育活动，其中还不包括到北京参加奥运会。

6月，布什在华盛顿主持了一个会议，主题是讨论他提出的一个为社会困难人士提供联邦基金援助的项目。对布什而言，他希望在卸任前将诸如此类的项目付诸实施。会议现场仅有一部摄像机，会议的细节内容也没有出现在第二天的任何大媒体上。一个月后，布什又参加了一场会议，会议内容是旨在表扬他的“自由议程”，参加者大多是外交官和政府官员。布什表达了他对包括林肯、罗斯福和里根在内的数名前总统的敬意，还在会议上提到了古巴、白俄罗斯、朝鲜和伊朗等不同政见国。他说：“有时总会感觉在斗争中是孤独的，但其实一点也不孤独，整个美国都能听到我。”

但事实上，美国人在那一天正在听奥巴马说话——因为那一天奥巴马出访柏林，全国各大媒体都实时跟踪报道。相比之下，布什的会议所受的关注度要小得多。事实上，媒体并非唯一渐渐“离开”布什的机构，民主党占据的国会同样不给总统面子，在不少问题上与他唱反调。

接下来，布什还将开办他的乔治·布什总统图书馆以及一个自由学会。他的顾问称，布什希望用这个学会作为在全球范围内推动民主运动进程的催化剂，邀请众多杰出的持不同政见者和激进主义分子，不定期召开会议和进行讨论。尽管他不会像卡特那样去世界各地对各国事务进行调停插手，也不会像克林顿那样主动出击，但他的学会依然会鼓励其任期中一直关注的国家中的那些反对派。除了建立图书馆，布什还计划出书。在他的总统生涯中有不少关键点值得他坐下来好好回味一番。其代表布伦特说：“他坚信历史会站在他这一边。即便历史不是站在他这一边，他也永远不会知道。”

据其朋友介绍，布什决定离职后通过参加有偿演讲赚钱。尽管在克劳福德已拥有一家农场，他还在自己准备开办的图书馆和学会附近买了一套房子，近期在休斯敦的一次活动中，他与其捐赠人谈到了这件事。“我们有个买房子的计划，劳拉已经在进行了。”于是有人接上话茬：“那在克劳福德怎么样？”

布什接着说：“我喜欢克劳福德，但在让劳拉为我做了8年牺牲之后，我已经不能再是决定人了。她将做出决定。谢谢你们的提议，不过可别在她在场时提出，我已在私底下向她说过。”

现在，他在竞选中的角色主要是与一些不为人知的捐赠人进行接洽。他已经开始参加有偿演讲，并为一些摄影师摆好姿势供拍照。这是他今年以来第33次参加这样的活动。

“历史将会是最好的裁判。”

至少，每个人都同意这一点。

“When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.”

对，不能忘记这7年的安全。不能忘记美国士兵的牺牲。

my own opinion:

every president thinks he is doing the right thing for the country. Look at the current result of the Iraq war, 100000+ people died in Iraq, 40% of middle-class have left the country,  and these are highly educated people in that country, 4000+ american soldiers died so far, from a number of indicators researched by US officials in Iraq, the living standard there is much worse than pre-war, i just heard some of these numbers on the radio ,  in fact,  this war is right or wrong, everyone has his own opinion.  If the reason for the war is to release Iraqi people from brutal regime, why not doing the same to North Korea? they won't do that , because there is nothing to gain out of the war.

晨思怎么没看到如果在来一次911美国会死多少人？你们凭什么说基地和中东狂热分子做了一次就会收手？出兵阿富汗和伊拉克至少保证了基地分子忙着逃命，而不是聚集起来再策划对美国的一次又一次的袭击。
安全是要付代价的。

反恐战争没错，问题是伊拉克政府与恐怖分子无直接关联。having the war against Iraq is called 'Invasion', （侵略），根本不是什么正义之战,这点人们要搞清楚。这对父子俩都是战争狂，911恐怖袭击也与老布什的中东政策有关。战争不能解决问题，只能使矛盾更激化，最后美国可能更遭殃。你以为恐怖分子会因为美军进驻伊拉克善罢甘休吗？那你太天真了，他们是人身体上的癌症，杀不死的.

那十万伊拉克人是该当炮灰的吗？这里有多少丈夫妻子，父亲母亲，少年儿童？四川地震大家都伤感，难道伊拉克人就不是人吗？the human suffering is still not enough in this world?

不争这个问题了，历史很可能证明布什是错的，反战的人是对的，你一定要反过来说也行。

那你为什么不提911？别人都suffer，美国那三千多个家庭呢？你有什么办法保证不发生第二次呢？

文取心在考验我的耐心啊，你问同样的问题第三次了，回答：打仗还是不打都不能保证第二次类似911的恐怖事件不发生，战争只能使敌人的下一次反扑更激烈。有恐怖分子在就没有安全感。

打仗之前，911让美国三千个家庭suffer，打仗以后又增加了另外四千多个家庭的suffering，如果10万伊拉克人当炮灰不算在内。

伊战的问题，很复杂。不过，从美国长期的利益来看，一个亲美的伊拉克比萨达姆治下的伊拉克对美国有利得多。除开反恐的考量，伊拉克1150亿桶石油也是一个重要因素。中东地区之所以对美国的对外政策至关重要，除开以色列的因素以外，它占世界总储量60%以上的石油资源是最主要的因素。美国控制了沙特和伊拉克，可以保证对中东石油的控制。这是由国家利益决定的，与推广民主自由、解放水深火热中的伊拉克人民关系不大。

正因为如此，自克林顿时代开始，regime change(即把萨达姆赶下台)，就是美国对伊政策的目标之一。不过克林顿时代主要是通过CIA的coverted operations，即希望通过在萨达姆内部培养内线，通过政变方式将堡垒从内部攻破。但是萨达姆的体制不是一般的堡垒，而是铁桶。所以靠政变解决问题几乎不可能。于是美国在野的一些保守派、鹰派人士，开始鼓吹用武力解决问题。其代表人物，就包括后来任国防部长的拉姆斯菲尔德。911给他们实现这个目标提供了难得的契机。前财长保罗-欧尼尔在他的回忆录里记载，911以后不久的一次内阁会议上，在讨论对阿富汗的空袭时，拉姆斯菲尔德说: “阿富汗内部没有什么目标可以炸，为什么不趁机轰炸伊拉克。”令欧尼尔大为不解。

所以，把伊拉克战争的责任（fault或者credit）都算在布什身上是不对的。当然布什作为最高决策者，要负最大的责任。伊拉克战争在军事上是极为成功的，充分体现美国军事科技的水平之高，令全世界瞠目，所以布什两个月后就声称“mission accomplished”。布什政府最大的问题是低估了战后重建的复杂性，导致整个配套政策没有根上，以及解散了伊拉克全部军事力量，为后来的insurgence埋下祸根。

正因为你回答不出，所以我一再问。那你说不打怎么办？用原则作交易？还是牺牲以色列？要知道以色列人民也有生存的权利，而伊斯兰铁了心要把以色列从地图上抹去。然后再是一步步地毁灭美国?你别急着说不会，历史是需要相当长的时间形成的。要知道美国的一切在伊斯兰的眼中完全是异端的化身，包括人权，女权，对同性恋宽容，自由思想，政教分离，不管你如何妥协，他还是要毁了你而后快。
你的回答不由得不使我想起一个词‘妇人之见’。

这个世界如果多点‘妇人之见’，就和平得多了，男人动不动就是使用暴力，好像战争是好玩的事，你自己如果住在伊拉克的话，会怎么想。这个世界就是太多暴力，大家以眼还眼才越搞越乱。

谁都知道伊战是冲石油去的，干嘛sugarcoat反恐和解放伊拉克人，如同用基督的名义去打仗。美国人口口声声的追求真理，热爱和平，都是bs。。。，虚伪到了家。

你先劝告基地组织采用‘妇人之见’吧。你看他们会不会听你的？

那就听‘男人之见’，继续打下去吧，最后再来个世界大战，大家同归于尽，人类从此在地球上消失，世界末日，这是最好的结果吧。

我不是搞政治的，但绝不相信除了打仗，没有其他途径，当时布什的决策也遭到其他国家的反对。

晨思，我们中国是阴柔的文化，包容是最大特点，当然也善于窝里斗。但你看看我们妥协、割让的近代史......

总之，中国文化，和穆斯林文化、基督文化相比，很像避免和外地人打架的上海人(逗逗文兄)。)

思维不同，就很难理解穆斯林文化的圣战意识，宗教根基......

当一场大战不可避免时，小布什选择的是先下手，来减少更大的影响面。

这次伊拉克战争，美国希望在中东种下一颗新的种子(也就是在穆斯林内部建一个城堡)，可能不成功，但是尝试，总比等着挨打强。

是bs，也不全是bs。反恐也是一个因素。萨达姆如果真的有大规模杀伤性武器，对美国以色列确是一个威胁。但是布什政府根据不确实情报，也的确夸大了这种威胁，导致了后来的creditbility问题。

另外不可忘记，布什发动伊战，是获得国会授权的，包括希拉里，克里等，基于大规模杀伤性武器的情报（另外还有石油这个说不出口的理由），都投票赞成。至于奥巴马，他确是一以贯之地反战，但是问题是：如果萨达姆确如当时英美的情报显示，拥有大规模杀伤性武器，而且正在试图获取浓缩铀以制造核武器，那么究竟是先发制人地把他解决掉，还是等到看到冒烟的枪口甚至是蘑菇云才动手呢？奥巴马作为一个州参议员的态度并不重要（尽管帮他得了不少政治分），但作为总统，三军统帅，他的worldview就至关重要了。在我看来，该出手时，还得出手。(当然前提是情报要准确)。最好的防御是进攻。奥巴马牌号的和平主义，或者叫绥靖主义，或者叫appeasement，在这个危险的世界上，不但不能解决问题，甚至可能带来更大的危险。我支持希拉里，就是因为他们在这一点上的分歧。

总之，我认为一个作为美国盟友的伊拉克，比萨达姆统治下的伊拉克，长远来说对美国、中东、和整个西方世界要有利得多。当然，代价也非常巨大。这让我想起华盛顿韩战纪念碑前的那句话：Freedom is not free.

再争下去就没劲了，大家的belief不同，结论也不同。国家之间是弱肉强食的自然法则，倡导和平只是徒劳。美国政府某种程度上与恐怖主义异曲同工。

谢谢悟空的耐心解释。政治世界复杂得如同一个毛线团，又有历史和宗教的因素，也没有神人来解开死结，就这么乱下去吧。活在当下就好，谁知道世界末日什么时候到来。

“总之，我认为一个作为美国盟友的伊拉克，比萨达姆统治下的伊拉克，长远来说对美国、中东、和整个西方世界要有利得多。当然，代价也非常巨大。这让我想起华盛顿韩战纪念碑前的那句话：Freedom is not free.”

现在的伊拉克，哪里还像个国家，死的死，逃的逃，国将不国。

freedom is not free? the truth is there is no freedom on earth, only warfare.

忍不住又讲两句。

奥巴马根本不是一个一贯反战者,他对阿富汗的9.11恐怖主义持有比布什更强烈的政策, 他反对依拉克是基于不相信美国打仗的借口, 他也不是一个人, 其实, 鲍威尔也很不相信那些情报, 这也是这次他力挺奥巴马的最终原因.

奥巴马认为中东问题最根本的解决办法是美国能源独立, 只有这样, 美国才能真正强大.

麻烦你们这些奥巴马的反对者不要妖魔化, 先把他的思想政策搞明白, 再骂他.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed to quickly end the war in Iraq and shift the focus of the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan, declaring in an address today that the “single-minded and open-ended focus" on Iraq "distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize.”

“This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century,” Obama said. “By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.”

Obama delivered the address on Iraq at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, ahead of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan later this month.

In the remarks, Obama vowed to take “the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan”: “In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was.

“We’ve been distracted from our most pressing threats, and we’ve pushed the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military—while neglected the other elements of American power,” he said. “And we’ve alienated ourselves from the world instead of strengthening our alliances.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will address what his campaign calls "his plans for winning the war in Afghanistan" at the top of a town hall he's holding in Albuquerque, N.M..

In remarks released by his campaign, McCain takes a tough shot at his rival for the presidency: "Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."


In an opinion article in yesterday’s New York Times, Obama said he would put two more combat brigades – roughly 7,000 troops – in Afghanistan.

Obama announced “five goals essential to making America safer”:

1. Ending the war in Iraq responsibly;

2. Finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;

3. Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations;

4. Achieving true energy security;

5. Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Here are excerpts from the address, as released by the campaign:

“Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What’s missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

-----------------------------

Iraq
In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

As a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of the war in Iraq, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's factions. Senator Obama has called for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military capability, and refocuses our resources on Afghanistan and our broader security interests. A residual force would remain in Iraq to target international terrorists, protect our service members and diplomats, and train and support Iraq's security forces as long as the Iraqis make political progress.

In January 2007, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act, which would have begun a redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that was consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. Since this legislation was introduced, Senator Obama has continued to be a strong advocate for legislative actions that could bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.

Unwise war in Iraq distracted us from catching Bin Laden

Q: What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?

A: I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Six years ago, I opposed this war because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, & whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, & as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. I wish I had been wrong. We've spent over $600 billion so far. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. We are still spending $10 billion a month at a time when we are in great distress here at home. The lesson is we should never hesitate to use military force, & I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. We did not use our military wisely in Iraq

刚刚看到这篇，看来我把伊拉克死亡人数少说了，以下文章的数据是65万人。

作者：戴开元 （节选）

现在，美国民主党总统候选人奥巴马与共和党总统候选人马凯恩争夺下届美国总统的争夺已到最后关头，双方通过集会、报纸、电视、广播、网路等各种手段抨击对手，宣扬自己的施政纲领。然而，许多选民，尤其是华裔选民，对两党政治路线分歧的实质依然稀里糊涂。最近进行的“全国亚裔美国人调查”显示，虽然41%的华裔选民支持奥巴马，12%的人支持马凯恩，仍然有43%的人举棋未定。

这场大选不仅关系到美国未来四年或八年要实行什么路线、走什么道路，关系到美国的国家命运和华人的切身利益，而且，由于美国是全球政治、经济、军事、文化最强大的国家，美国的政策对于全人类的方向和命运具有重大影响。我们切不可掉以轻心，袖手旁观。为此，笔者就美国选民最关心的一些重要问题，略陈自己的管见。

伊战之争

小布什上台八年来，其对外政策的最重大行动是攻占伊拉克的战争。这场战争已经打了五年多，至今还在继续。这是一场师出无名、伤亡惨重、劳民伤财、损人害己的不义之战。

当年为了说动国会批准进攻伊拉克，布什政府宣称，伊拉克与策划九一一事件的罪魁祸首----本拉登的基地恐怖组织勾结，萨达姆政府还在秘密研制大规模杀人武器。于是，布什既未得到联合国授权，又未获得大多数盟国的支持，悍然出兵进攻伊拉克。然而，打下伊拉克之后，美军挖地三尺，翻遍萨达姆政府的所有档案资料，却找不到证实这两条“宣战理由”的任何证据。

这场战争给美伊两国的军队和无辜平民造成严重伤亡。到10月初为止，美军已死亡4177人（远远超过九一一事件中死亡的美国人数），受伤6万余。伊拉克方面，据世界卫生组织估计，15万1000伊拉克军民死于战争，据约翰霍普金斯大学2006年10月的研究结果，死于战争的伊拉克平民人数高达65万5000人。

世界上没有免费的午餐，更没有免费的战争。迄今为止，美国打伊拉克战争至少已经花费6480亿元，目前每月花费120亿元。据诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格里兹（Joseph Stiglitz）等人的研究，如果加上安置退伍军人、补充消耗的美军武器装备的费用，以及给全社会带来的长期间接损失，伊拉克占战争的总费用将超过3万亿元。至于战争给伊拉克国家与民众造成的财产损失，更是一个天文数字。

伊拉克战争的高昂费用，给美国经济带来沉重的负担。克林顿总统卸任前后的1998至2001年，美国政府连续四年财政盈余。布什上台以后，连续七年财政赤字，今年赤字更高达4500多亿元。一些经济学者预测，2009年度预算赤字很可能超过7000亿元。造成这种局面的主要原因之一，就是伊拉克战争。仅此而言，说小布什是一位败家子总统，一点也不过分。

九一一事件发生后，美国内部同仇敌忾，空前团结，国际上，美国的旧盟国、新友邦，甚至一些宿敌也站在美国一边，声讨基地组织的恐怖攻击罪行，支持美国的反恐行动。法国报纸甚至发表社论声称“今晚我们都是美国人”。但伊战发生后，大多数盟国和其它国家反对美国，美国在全世界的形象一落千丈，有的人士甚至指责美国才是对世界和平的最大威胁。

某些极右派反共人士说，伊拉克战争推翻了萨达姆专制政权，建立起民主制度，壮大了全世界民主阵营的力量。然而，美国家门口的古巴也是共产党一党专制，其意识形态跟美国针锋相对，美国为何不出兵去推翻卡斯特罗政权？北韩不仅是共产党独裁专制，而且在秘密研制飞弹和核武器，威胁美国的盟国日本和南韩，布什怎么不去打它？ 另外，人血不是水，用伊拉克数十万无辜民众的鲜血，去强行打造一个民主政权，这个代价是不是有点太高？

有人说，伊拉克战争打击了恐怖主义。然而，布什把美军主力抽调到伊拉克打仗，九一一事件的元凶本拉登及其死党，至今仍在阿富汗-巴基斯坦交界的山区逍遥法外，建立根据地，招兵买马，纠集力量，再度展开恐怖活动，随时可能再度攻击美国。尽管布什在国内花费巨资，从机场到边境，采取种种措施防止恐怖分子袭击，美国面临的恐怖威胁一点也没有减少。

还有人说，情报机构提供的错误情报导致布什判断失误。即使果真如此，布什作为美国总统，手中掌握着决定成千上万军民生死和支配上亿公共资金的大权，岂可未弄清真相就遽然做出派兵攻打别国的重大决定？这能说是一位称职负责的总统吗？而且，在打下伊拉克、发现情报不确之后，布什为何不迅速纠正错误，反而一直坚持打得对，打得有理，至今毫无悔改表现？

对这场祸国殃民的不义之战，奥巴马和马凯恩的态度迥然不同。伊战刚刚发生时，奥巴马还是伊利诺州的州参议员，他旗帜鲜明地反对伊战。现在奥巴马主张尽快结束战争，在16个月内分期分批地撤走绝大部分作战部队，让伊拉克政府承担更大维持社会安定的责任，同时，集中优势兵力去阿富汗，消灭本拉登的残余势力。

马凯恩从一开始就坚决支持布什出兵伊拉克，支持向伊拉克增兵，至今仍然认为攻打伊拉克是完全正确，他反对制定从伊拉克撤军的时间表，甚至声称美军“要在伊拉克待一百年”。

（第二部分）
纳税问题
     
    纳税是美国大多数选民，尤其是华人选民最关心的问题。作为普通老百姓，没有人喜欢交税。但是，维持政府的正常运转，养军队，雇警察，维修公路、桥梁等基础设施，资助科学研究和教育，解决老人的退休和医保、儿童、穷人及残障人的医疗等，都需要钱，而且需要很多钱，这些钱主要来自民众的纳税。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    纳税太多，民众负担不起；税收太少，社会的公共利益和福利会受影响。公平合理的赋税政策，应该既不要使民众，尤其是穷人和中产阶级的纳税负担过重，又要保障政府的正常运作。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    关于赋税政策，欧巴玛和马凯恩自说自话，无非是说自己的计划对选民最有力，对方的政策对选民的损害最大。媒体的说法也是五花八门，令人眼花缭乱，不知所云。其中许多说法显然是带有严重的党派偏见、有意歪曲事实真相、欺骗选民而编造的谎言。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    非党派组织“税务政策中心”（Tax Policy Center）的税务专家威廉斯（Roberton Williams）与葛莱克顿（Howard Gleckman），分析奥巴马和马凯恩各自提出的税务计划之后，于9月15日发表一份研究报告----“2008年总统候选人税务计划的最新分析”。税务政策中心由非党派的“城市研究所”（Urban Institute）和保守派的“布鲁金斯研究院”（Brookings Institution）联合设立，其立场应该比其它一些研究机构和个人更为客观公正，至少不会偏向民主党。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    Parade杂志把这份研究报告的结论，简化成下面一分表格。
     
    家庭年收入--------------奥巴马计划--------------马凯恩计划
    低于1万9000元-----------减税567元--------------减税21元
    1万9000-3万7600元-------减税892元--------------减税118元
    3万7600-6万6400元-------减税1118元-------------减税325元
    6万6400-11万1600元------减税1264元-------------减税994元
    11万1600-16万1000元-----减税2135元-------------减税2584元
    16万1000-22万7000元-----减税2796元-------------减税4437元
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    22万7000-60万3400元-----加税121元--------------减税8154元
    60万3400-287万元--------加税9万3709元----------减税4万8862元
    287万元以上-------------加税54万2882元----------减税29万0708元
     
    表面看来，实行马凯恩的计划，人人都获减税，皆大欢喜。而奥巴马的计划会使一些人多纳税。然而，马凯恩计划使穷人和中产阶级仅得到少量的减税，而占全国人口5%的最有钱的人得到的减税最多。奥巴马的计划，穷人和中产阶级得到的较多减税，只有最有钱的人才多交税。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    该报告总结说：“奥巴马的计划会使低收入和中等收入家庭的纳税减少，但会显著提高高收入者的赋税，中等收入纳税者的税后收入会增加约5%，即每年2200元。占全国总人口1%的最高收入者，税后收入会减少1.5%，或1万9000元。” ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    “到2012年，马凯恩的计划会使中等收入纳税人的税后收入平均增加约3%，即每年1400元。但与奥巴马形成鲜明对比的是，马凯恩会使收入最高的1%的人的税后收入平均增加9.5%，即超过12万5000元。” ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    由此观之，奥巴马和马凯恩这两位总统候选人，民主党和共和党这两个政党，究竟谁代表了大多数人的利益，谁在竭力维护极少数人的利益，可说是一目了然。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
     
    路线之争的实质
     
    有论者说，奥巴马和民主党实行的是“社会主义”路线，你有两头牛，你的邻居没有牛，社会主义政府会把你的牛拿去，分一头给邻居，使你和邻居拥有“一样多”的财产。马凯恩和共和党实行的是“资本主义”路线，政府会鼓励你卖一头牛（卖给谁？），用卖牛的钱买一头公牛（跟谁买？），它们会生出很多小牛，你的牛会越来越多，如果你、你的邻居、全国人民都有很多牛（一无所有的邻居和其它穷人如何才能有很多牛？），那么你们每人只要给政府一桶牛奶，政府就有很多钱修路造桥了。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    再没有比这更蹩脚的比喻了。
    让我们简要回顾一下西方资本主义制度的发展史。在20世纪以前，包括美国在内的西方国家，在经济上主要是所谓自由放任政策（laissez-faire），政府几乎不介入经济活动，结果是少数人发家致富，大多数人日益贫困，社会矛盾越来越大，而且还周期性地发生经济危机。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    1929年美国发生经济大萧条，股市一泻千里，大批银行倒闭，无数工厂、公司、商店关门，成千上万人失业。民主党的弗兰克林．罗斯福总统上台后实行“新政”（New Deal），变自由放任为政府积极干预经济，管制银行和工业，组织失业工人从事修路造桥建水坝等公共工程，建立社会安全制度等社会保障和福利制度，使美国经济得以迅速恢复并走向繁荣。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    战后历届美国政府尤其是民主党人掌权的政府，基本上沿袭和发展罗斯福的“新政”路线。西欧国家在工党、社会党执政后实行所谓“社会民主主义”（social democracy），其主要内容是大型企业国有化、实行公共教育、全民医保等社会福利计划，用高额累进税来减小（而不是消灭）贫富悬殊现象。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    1980年代以来，西方国家发生英国首相撒切尔夫人、美国总统里根为代表的“新保守主义革命”，欧洲的保守党政府把国有企业和银行私有化，削减社会福利计划。美国的共和党政府取消政府对金融、商业的管制和干预，减税尤其是大幅削减富人、大公司的赋税，削减福利计划，这种路线一言以蔽之，“小政府加减税”。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    20世纪欧美自由民主国家的发展历程显示，支配社会政治经济体制运作的主要是两条路线，一条是社会民主主义，另一条是保守主义。两者的共同点是皆主张政治民主制度和市场经济制度。两者的区别在于，前者主张政府对经济实行某种程度的干预，在财富分配上倾向于照顾和帮助穷人、弱势群体和中产阶级，以征税、福利计划等二次分配方式缩小贫富悬殊；后者主张经济自由放任主义，政府尽量少干预经济，维护富人的利益。美国民主党的路线基本上就是社会民主主义，共和党主张的则是保守主义路线。奥巴马和马凯恩之争的实质，并不是什么“社会主义”和“资本主义”之争，乃是社会民主主义与保守主义两条路线之争。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    客观地说，两种路线各有自己的利弊。任何路线如果走过了头，都会产生一系列弊病，甚至引发严重的经济危机。社会民主主义有利于缩小贫富差距，缓和社会贫富之间的对立和矛盾，其弊病是容易造成政府机构臃肿庞大，开支过大，民众税负过重，福利计划养出一些懒汉。保守主义有利于发挥有钱人投资的积极性，其缺点是贫者愈贫，富者愈富，而且经济自由放任主义容易导致经济危机特别是金融危机。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
     
    两条路线，两种结果
     
    小布什上台八年来，继承和发展里根的新保守主义政策，在外交方面以反恐为名，推行单边主义路线，穷兵黩武，以武力追求美国独霸世界的地位，结果是盟国离心离德，其它国家愤恨不满；在内政方面，布什信奉市场原教旨主义和社会达尔文主义，拼命减税尤其是削减富人和大公司的赋税，结果是政府债台高筑，物价飞涨，失业率达到五年来的最高点（6.1%），全国约六分之一的人（4600万）没有医疗保险，在20多个工业化国家中人均医疗支出最高，预期寿命和婴儿死亡率却居最差之列，贫富分化严重，吉尼系数高达4.06，为西方自由民主国家之冠，政府放松对金融业的管制，导致次贷危机以及最近爆发的自1930年以来最严重的金融危机。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    奥巴马在外交上主张负责任地、尽快地结束伊拉克战争，集中力量打击和消灭以本拉登为首的一小撮恐怖分子，与盟国修好，尽可能地团结多数国家，与伊朗等宿敌谈判，尽量争取以和平手段解决核武扩展等问题，武力只是最后手段，不到万不得已，绝不轻言动武。在内政上，奥巴马主张为穷人和中产阶级减税，只对极少数富人加税；取消一些把资本和就业机会转移到外国的大公司所享受的减税优惠，以增加美国的就业机会；争取所有美国人都得到可以负担得起的医疗保险；开发可替代能源，以减少对外国石油的依赖；大力加强教育，以增加美国人在全球化经济中的竞争力；改革美国的政治体制，限制特殊利益集团游说和收买政客、谋取小团体私利的活动。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    马凯恩原先在某些问题上没有布什那幺保守和极端，自称是共和党内的独立派（maverick），但为了扭转民调的劣势，他挑选原教旨主义基督徒佩林作竞选搭挡，其立场和路线完全倒向共和党的最保守势力。可以预料，如果马凯恩上台，其内政外交必然奉行“没有布什的布什路线”。 ( http://www.tecn.cn )
    哪条路线孰优孰劣，谁的政策有利于美国和绝大多数民众的根本利益，有利于美国的国计民生、社会和谐和长治久安，有利于美国与世界各国和睦相处，有利于世界和平，华人选民只要擦亮双眼，不为某些政客的抹黑竞选战术所骗，自然不难做出自己的明智判断

８０年代伊拉克搞核武，以色列派出几架飞机，将其筹建中的核设施炸个稀巴烂，
从此萨达母再也没搞成核武。布什统领下的美军为何还不如以色列？实际上情报
不实，布什从头到尾是清楚的。借反恐轻启战端滥用国力，直至如今不可收拾。

北朝鲜真搞核武，威胁驻日美军甚至美国西海岸，为何不对其动武？炸掉它的核设
施对美军来说应该易如反掌。打伊拉克完全是经济利益至上，布什真的是为美国人
民的安全考量？别逗了。

另外，为何不全力解决本拉登，９１１至今７年了，居然还让他逍遥法外威胁美国。
小布什这总司令是怎么当的。小马“自伊拉克撤军，全力解决本拉登”的主张才是
对美国的安全负责。

我很不理解有人支持小布什的伊战（尤其是伊甸的作家们），人类有记载的历史五千年中，只有几百年是没有战乱的，和平的生活来之不易，除非有特殊的理由，比如别国入侵，或者本国的安全受到严重威胁，那么战争是正义（比如打阿富汗捉拿宾拉登是正义的）。伊拉克没有immediate threat, 侵略行为是非正义的。

话不能这么说。布什政府夸大了伊拉克的威胁不假，但是你有什么根据说“情报不实，布什从头到尾是清楚的”？我劝你读读Bob Woodward的“Plan on Attack"一书，这样你对布什发动伊拉克的来龙去脉会有一个了解。不要忘记，鲍威尔在联大作伊拉克大规模杀伤性武器问题的发言时，坐在他身后的不是别人，而是当时的中央情报局局长George Tenet，其象征意义再清楚不过了。我想你应该记得George Tenet说伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器是“slam dunk"的话，你我都喜欢打篮球，应当懂得这话的意思。

再给你举个例子，伊战之前，DIA(Defense Intelligence Agency)根据material intelligence(如卫星侦察等)，汇集了900多个藏有大规模杀伤性武器的可疑地点(又称“master list")。后来美军进入伊拉克后，对这900多个地点作了逐一检查，没有发现大规模杀伤性武器，情报界不得不承认这是美国情报界最大的一次失误，参院为此专门成立调查委员会此事，George Tenet为此以“家庭原因”的借口黯然下台。

我最反感发言不看证据，而只根据自己的grandstanding。我过去也是反对伊战的，但是读了Bob Woodward的三本书以后，才感到事情不是那么简单。(Woodward是揭露水门事件的名记者，他对布什政府在战后重建的失误有尖刻的批评)。布什对伊用武，是经国会授权，因此国会对此也负有责任。奥巴马说阿富汗才是反恐战争的重点，但是他在参院外交事务委员会阿富汗分委员会担任召集人2年之久(不算他全时竞选总统这2年)，居然没有召开过一次会议，这能说明什么问题？说明Talk is cheap. Empty talk is cheaper.

文取心给你讲张伯伦的绥靖政策，致使死伤的百姓更多更多，你听不进去，怎么好理解别人？

几本书就是“证据”？政治人物的话能信？太天真了吧。

要靠自己分析：战前萨达姆就已经彻底屈服，任凭美国进入伊拉克搜索那些子虚乌
有的“大规模杀伤武器”，可小布什根本不从，执意要开战。这就是事实真相。结
果挖地三尺也没找到那些玩意。而北韩的核设施明摆着那里，为什么不去摧毁.

老美还敢打北韩？中国不同意，敢打么？北韩和伊拉克是有区别的。

只要美国不把伊拉克人从地球上消灭，第2个911绝难避免。下一轮炸弹不一定在纽约，但可能在旧金山、芝加哥、洛杉矶等等。美国人种下了仇恨，最终还是要收获炸弹。

北朝鲜的核武对驻朝、驻日美军，对美国西海岸都是巨大威胁，为何不去炸掉，是不是
“绥靖”？

你白读圣经了，本质不一样。
唉，真是“妇人之见”。

Sure, Obama's talk is cheap, and history will judge Bush is a great 总统

I just wonder when ?

说你罔顾事实绝不冤枉你。战前美国人进入伊拉克作过调查？你知道调查的是谁吗？是UN inspector, 瑞典人Hans Blix。你知道他的结论是什么：“I must not jump to the conclusion that they (WMD) exist. However, the possibility is also not exluded."

处处拿北韩说事，北韩的经济战略地位， 能跟伊拉克相比？北韩要是真有核武，第一个要担心的是中国。

BTW， 我看你打篮球的水平也相当有限。

Noboday ever said Bush will be judged as a great president. But history's verdict could be different from our prevailing wisdom today, based on how things unfold in the future. Just look at Truman's case.

History has its own timing.

俺罔顾了什么事实？一头雾水呀。罔顾了伊拉克确实有ＷＭＤ的事实？对伊开战的
证据究竟是什么？即使是假的，也请拿出来给大家看看。那瑞典人的话说了跟没说
差不多，能作为开战的证据？找ＷＭＤ象找钻石，不觉得很搞笑吗。如果伊拉克有
什么ＷＭＤ，美国的卫星还发现不了，ＣＩＡ都是吃素的。

篮球比不过，咱们来比足球、网球、乒乓、台球、游泳如何？

Let's forget about Iraq. If you continue to stick with your grandstanding, you are fully entitled to do so. I am more interested in fact-checking and truth-finding. I can't claim I am always right. But the difference btw you and I is: If facts warrant, I am more than willing to revise my views. But you are not.

I suggested you read a book based on solid investigation and research by a reputable author, you dismissed it as not trustworthy. If Woodward is not trustworthy in the business of investigative reporting, I wonder who else is?

Pooling? You must be kidding yourself, man. I never consider pooling as a serious sport. But I'll be glad to take your challenge on soccer, swimming, running, and of course, the hoops.

Let me rephrase Einstein 's famous line :"Politics are for the moment. Sports are for eternity."

I understand what you tried to say. But the actual situation on the ground has been steadily improving since the surge, according to a Washignton Post report. The news media in this counrty seems to have more interests in negative news. As a result, positive developments do not get nearly as much reporting.

Bottom line: I still believe a world w/o Saddam is much better off than a world with him. This is particuarly true from the standpoint of US national interests.  No doubt the sacrifice and cost were enormous. Bush adminstration's colossal mismanagement of the post-war recovery is at once indefensible and unforgivable. But seeing the war from the sole lense of 正义 or 非正义 is probabbly an oversimplification of an immensely complex situation. Again, none of us is saint. Only history can tell whether the war justifies the cost and the sacrifice.

支持捂空，说得好。

Wukong, i fully respect your opinion, you may have read a lot more than others on this issue, i understand the complexity in the decision,  and the reality is, no one knows all the fine details and full picture behind the decision, including that author you mentioned, politics are dirty and ugly, everyone knows that. the truth in our layman's eyes are interpretations based on what we read and heard, it is biased and limited, including my own opinion, do you agree?

为力文曲心，对持有反对意见的，‘妇人之见’这类藐视他人居高临下的词汇，少用，这是对他人的极度不尊重，也证明不了你就掌握了真理。你的意见并不比他人更重要，更正确，我们都是盲人摸象。

大家有话赶快说，明天就没戏了，
我周围的老美说，不希望一场人生剧马上结束。

你老人家大概是真糊涂。 北韩的核武器是中国给的， 连这都不知道？ 中国怕北韩？北韩没中国他能生存一天？北韩是中国手里吓唬美国的牌。

说到底， 打伊拉克就是为了石油， 可惜，没搞来。 伊拉克现在和中国好着那，欧洲也在联手中国， 要借着金融危机抗衡美国。

有钱有劲就赶快搞能源独立吧。能让美国走在这条路上的总统才是下一个历史上伟大的总统。 布什就算了。

不少大作家文字一流，可是一旦别人有不同意见的时候，就没有他们文字试图表达的那种潇洒和大度了。不客气地说，很多argument简直是弱智。举一个例子吧，911又是一个什么背景呢？哪位高人给说说历史吧，千万别避重就轻。

萨达姆该死，不过不是因为WMD.  要打就打呗，整那许多没用的。既要编什么WMD, 就接着遍呗，别事后改口，说什么他就是该死。打了又能怎么样呢，你又能奈我何？

还记得南斯拉夫使馆的事吧？用错地图? You are a real fool if you believe that.