do u think that Mr.Bush is rit on iran issue...?
543441
i think that bush only understands about a third of what he says. he's a puppet of dick cheney and karl rove. i think that we've screwed up the middle east enough already. i'm really hoping we can delay things in iran until someone brighter joins his cabinet, or is newly elected.
414113
Please scratch "US". I want nothing to do with fighting in the mid east...loose-loose if you have noticed. ONly Bush would think it was a good idea, and he hasn't had a good idea in about 60 years...yes, I know he isn't 60...that is just the point.
38671
of course ahmadinejad is so better than bush \nanybody know this \nahmadinejad is honest and i think bush is a big lier\nbut never allow policy !!!!!!
364478
Iran = the diversion bush needs to keep up the pressure on the illegal alien issue, which covers the scooter libby scandal, which covered the he lied about the WMD... o the tangle web we weave when we weave a tale of such deception\n\nthe closer the elections of 2008 get the MORE likely we go to war against IRAN
127119
If us was stupid yes \nI think iran isnt iraq or afganestan
677938
It's the 'hot button' issue of the day.  The media dictates what is talked about, and that is influenced by the government.  Right now, Bush needs something to take peoples' attention away from Iraq, Iran, and the rising cost of gas.  Enter the immigration issue.
482639
this is going to be tuff to call.\n\nLet us reason this out.\n\nWhy he wont attack Iran?\n\n- Dwindling rating at home\n- Election year 2008 is fast approaching. While there is an opinion that senate elections may be won by the Democrat, given their current condition, they may not be able to challenge the republicans in 2008, as they do not have an experience nominee, unlike a republican nominee like a McCain or a Gulliani. So the republicans may hold Bush back on this invasion.\n- Lack of international support. Russia and China have significant business investments in Iran\n- It will hopelessly complicate the Iraq issue, considering the proximity of Iran and its influence in Southern Iraq.\n- The Oil prices are already at $75, and an attach will def send it to closer to $100\n- It will damage the credibility of US in the Middle East and nobody would like to do business with it
259067
if the US invades iran, its game over for the entire world. only a fool would attack AGAIn in the middle east...though i must be honest, Bush IS such a fool...time will tell.
392668
I think the U.S.'s idiot of a President would have the guts to go to war with Iran.  It's getting the support of Congress and the people of the U.S. that might be the problem.  Going to war with Iran would be completely stupid because the U.S. is already overextended in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in its war on terrorism.  I do believe something has to be done about Iran, but I really don't know what.  I sure hope it doesn't come to war though.  If it does, I'm moving out of the U.S. for good!
940210
YEEEEE HAAAAA!!!!\n\nBush really needs his Jeffy tonite, eh!!!
538011
Based on poll numbers, no.\n\nBut that's irrelevant. He's doing the job we NEED him to do.
41739
I'm going to have to quote Sherasi here (you wrapped this up perfectly): Personally, I neither hate or love President Bush. He has been an adequate president doing nothing outstanding or terrible in either direction.  (Now here's my part).  As for the WMD's it is possible that they haven't been found.  However, and I don't think I'm speaking alone when I say this, given the tone of the Administration, the UN speech by Colin Powel and George Bush's own firey speeches, I was under the impression that the WMD posed a clear and present danger to us our or our friends in Europe (them being closer, it would be easier to get a missle there).  Therefore, even though I wasn't an avid war supporter, I did expect there to be some sort of major find (again, just because of the tone).  After these years, though it is possible that they are well hidden, the United States has sent top experts of our own (so the crack towards the UN in an earlier answer was pointless), along with spy planes, ground-penetrating radar and computer logistics simulations that could track the likely path of any movement.  I believe the weapons did exist, at one time, but were destroyed or moved.  The fact that the supposed weapons haven't been found then should NOT be seen as a 'victory' for Democrats or a 'defeat' to Republicans.  It should, if we go on the premise that Bush was telling the truh, be a cause of great alarm:  Where are these weapons? Could enemies be plotting against us right now?  It is very sad (and alarming) how even something as overtly destructive as biotoxins suddenly becomes political in this toxic political atmosphere.  And to address you additional comment, if the weapons are one day found, I would hope that the 'Bush haters' say "It looks like we made a mistake".  However, you and I and everyone here knows d*mn well that we're not that forgiving in America, and that - unfortunately - is the reason many foreign policy blunders (and that's aimed at all Presidents, not just Bush) go not only unapologized for, but are compensated by compoundingly disastrous steps.
494155
good point.....   relay this to Mr. Bush
440338
no cuz we dont have enough troops and money to start a war with Iran. but with Bush we never know what he will do next, like a drunk guy, you never know were he will stumble to.
975311
Actually no.\n\nThey made a very rigorous attempt during the Israel/Hezbollah conflict but basically got slapped back. I think it being an election year hindered any plans for aggression towards Iran.\n\nThe backlash of popular opinion was enormously against any Iranian aggression and I think that shocked the Bush administration. I think they were expecting more support like they got for invading Iraq.\n\nAnyways, if you look at events since then, they have backed way off of any thoughts towards attacking Iran. Bush actually stated, ".... we have to respect the processes of the UN..."\n\nNow tell me that isn't a flip flop... and I have land to sell you on the Florida water.
255426
i think bush is a liar
384352
I think any person (including President Bush who I happen to think is the best president since Abe Lincoln) who is under a lot of stress of running a country or some large class of social setting is bound to be a closet-case.  I doubt very much that Bush is the type to hide things in the closet, but I found out this morning that he plans to nuke Iran's political leaders' bunkers so that the people will overthrow the government and accept a diplomatic government setting.  I don't think this is the wisest thing to do, but it is far better than doing nothing.  And even after Bush's term is over, people will never cease to find things that he did wrong.  But if people are so charged up about the fact that there is no right or wrong, how can they be so emphatic that somebody is wrong?  And if you're supposed to tolerate people despite their opinions of right and wrong, then Bush is doing just that.  I have mixed feelings over nuking just anybody.\n\n  For one, he is openly declaring war on another country with a separated (but linked issue of possible terrorist actions) topic.  It is not totally unlike him because unlike the Afghanistan issue in which he thought that there were weapons of mass destruction, Iran has openly told the rest of the world that they have these weapons and in fact plan to use them.\n  But on the other hand, he had already declared global war on terror to stop terror in countries outside the US before they have a chance to strike inside.  Before the US dropped the H-bomb on Hiroshima, they had given the Chinese several explicit warnings to 'cease fire' or measures would be to force them to stop.  Bush's stand on nukes has been to seek them out and stop them from being made.  Now it seems that he has resigned to the answer of the popular question in the political category: Is bombing the Middle East the answer to solving the war problems?\n\n  I don't think it is.  I don't think that any one person can decide whether a war can be stopped or decide to take actions to keep a war from starting.  I admire any person who decides to keep a war from starting.  I haven't found any man (including Bush) who declares war on a country for reasons that seem right at the moment and then turn foul afterward.  The war that was declared after 9/11 was a retaliation.  The war on Iran would be a preventive action taken to try and keep anything bigger from exploding.  One thing is certain.  There will always be a war of some sort at all times.