Major high-5 on the GW - Bill Murray connection. You pegged it on the head. What a bunch of lying, self serving assholes we have running this country. Both parties suck in a major way.
C onsidering there were 8 candidates from 8 parties running for Prez in 2000 and the democraps and repugnicans got 98% of the media coverage, the only chance America has would be to break their monopolies. But since they are in control of the rules, the chances of that happening are next to zero.
America, we're fucked. 
make that 5 years 3 days....
I agree with you, cmass, for the most part. I have no idea why we're in Iraq, though I'm fairly certain that the abutting countries of Iraq and the majority of Iraqi's are thrilled that we're there. Maybe the current administration felt that if democracy was ever going to flourish in the Middle East, Iraq was the best place the start; maybe Jr. wanted to storm Baghdad in response to the foiled assassination plot of dear-old-Dad; maybe they did it to test some of the Defense Department's new toys; maybe they did it just to piss you off.
I do know this: I have zero faith in politicians to accomplish what they say they're going to do. I don't necessarily blame them. I blame the bureaucratic behemoth our federal government has become.
Example 1: If Warren Buffett had been given $180B to fix New Orleans, it would have been completed 6 months ago under budget and better than ever.
Example 2: If MS13 had been given $300B to find Usama bin Laden, his head would've been atop a lance on the front lawn of the White House within a month or two.
Great examples and I think both would have been correct. You did miss the main reason we're over there though, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, GOP, oil and the web of snakes that are entwined.
See, I still have a problem with the "we are there for the oil" theory. I'm really not trying to score cheap political points with this, I am just trying to figure out what is actually going on.
There are two basic possibilities as to why we are in Iraq, and I can't get myself to believe in either one.
1) It is a part of some master plan, whose purpose has not been made entirely clear yet. As has been pointed out, invading Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as invading Peru after Pearl Harbor. But maybe it really does fit into some overall scheme, for good or evil, that we aren't aware of yet. The quest for oil is a plausible candidate for this plan, but events on the ground don't really support that concept. 3 years post invasion and oil production is below pre-war levels. That is no way to run a master plan.
2) The Bushies really believed that invading Iraq with a minimum force and no plans for occupation would magically transform Iraq into a beacon of freedom and democracy that would be a role model for all other countries in the region. Our troops really would be met as liberators and showered with candy and flowers. I just can't get myself to believe that hard headed, big brained pols like Cheney and Rumsfeld could actually believe in such nonsense.
It comes down to master plan vs massive incompetence, but I am not sure that the Bushies are up to the challenge of either one. Any better ideas?
Cheney: Maybe. He's a very smart (let the flame-war begin) and influential man, but I think you're giving him too much credit.
Halliburton: Negative. I've never figured out this part of the conspiracy theory. HAL's stock is under $30/share. And, yes, it's gone up since 2003, but so has everything else. It goes up after every war, because they're always called in to reconstruct. Don't believe me, check for yourself and see, the last big spike was just after the Balkan crisis when Clinton gave Halliburton a "no-bid" contract. It isn't just Bush/Cheney, my friend, they all do it.
GOP: Negative. Congress authorized the war. Both parties. Hindsight is 20/20.
Oil: You're kidding right?!? Have you filled up your car recently?
Dick Cheney is a smart and capable man. I think that is beyond question. The guy has a track record of competence that goes back to the 1970's. Same for Rummy. Like GHW Bush, their contemporary, they are CEO/technocrat caliber guys. That is what makes the Keystone Kops theory so hard to accept. How can guys this smart perform so poorly? It is a mystery.
One possibility is that Cheney and Rummy, among others, have been corrupted by their belief in the PNAC/neocon philosophy to the point where their blind faith in the "Unipolar Moment" has rendered them stupid.
This concept that the US is the sole superpower and therefore required to bitch slap the rest of the world, starting with Iraq, into submission to our will and our demand for resources, is just dumb enough to nullify the God-given brain power of the most capable pol.
Who the hell knows?
those guys are there to make money, pure and simple. maybe the Neocon aggenda plays a role, but Haliburton's bottom line plays a MUCH bigger one.

bunbuns5
I really think that it's sad that he uses the anniversary to go on an on about how we ned to stay on top of the terrorists. (Yes, we should) however, he shouldn't be using it for political gain and insinuating that America needs to keep Republicans in control.
However, what REALLY pisses me off are the idiots that take propaganda like "loose change" seriously. Has anyone watched this piece of crap? If anyone hasn't and wants to, I suggest they follow along with www.loosechangeguide.com.
It takes almost every claim that these idiots make and shows why they're false and outright lies.
On 9/11 one of my friends had her away message set as "Everyone should watch the video "Loose Change", especially on the anniversary of 9/11"
grr.. just ticks me off.. Another girl that I work with (though she doesn't work, but that's another rant) was quoting from that video in the company cafeteria.