Doing a heck of a job, Brownie...In all candor, by now there is nothing this squalid crew can't screw up...

Any credible evidence that this was a motivating factor in such an invasion would be grounds for impeachment.

This is a joke, right?

This is the only legitimate reason to go to war, even though it may not sound morally or politically correct. But at least it makes sense, unlike the other reasons Bush has been throwing at us.

Going to war for the sole reason of restimulating the economy is morally wrong. Yet the removal of Saddam Hussein from the region has given investors a little more breathing room. Even though things haven't been going great in Iraq, as long as there are no major terrorist attacks, we will probably be fine. Confidence is the biggest motivator in getting people invested in the markets once again. The reason why people are not investing is because the international situation has been very unstable recently. The movements of the economy are in response to psychological stimuli in most cases. The economy in and of itself has not been so bad with the exception of certain sectors (technology) that were overvalued in the 1990's. What has ailed the economy since 9/11 is apprehension. The impression that we're catching terrorists and rapidly eliminating rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein's go a long way in making Americans confident in their government and the markets at least temporarily. Of course, pre-emptive warfare in the long term has the potential of de-stabilizing the international political and economic system. Nations like North Korea and Russia now say that they have the right to use pre-emptive warfare whenever they feel another nation is a threat. We broke a 450 year precedent set by the Treaty of Westphalia which established the nation-state system. The United States's attempt to exert influence in the Middle East unfortunately will probably weaken us in the long term. National sovereignty is the cornerstone of world stability. We might get a short term economic and political boost, but when the deck of cards starts falling the Middle East and when our word to other nations becomes worthless, it will begin to affect our economy and our relative strength. (Sorry to sound negative, but it's reality!!)

I'm going to explain this very slowly... Human... life... is... more important than money, always has been and always will be.

Is this a joke? I don't see how taking 500 billion dollars and flushing it down the toilet will help create jobs. And even if the economy was stagnating (it wasn't), I think most of us would prefer that to an economy that's in a steep nosedive. The worst economic crash in history is going to come soon, and it will be because of the insane policies of the Bush administration. We've put the fox in charge of the chicken coop and the bank robbers in charge of the bank. Better stock up on candles and ammunition, because American society is on the verge of collapse if something isn't done about this situation.

The truly Godawful and lame administration of Ronnie "I Want A Cookie, Mommy" Rectum displayed quite clearly the onerous pitfalls of Military Keynesianism, that mentally retarded economic strategy of using defense spending as a means to spur aggregate growth. It took just six years of that Voodoo nonsense to triple the then-existing U.S. debt to roughly $5.5 billion. Brilliant economic thinker, that Rectum. When you factor in the runaway federal deficits incurred under that senile old fart's stewardship to the entire U.S. economy during that time, you come up with an actual economic contraction, not an expansion. Government spending is counted as a contribution to the GNP, and actually is a function of growth if there is no deficit, because the government's purchase of goods and services, cash on the barrel, adds to the aggregate output/consumption. However, if the government is paying for goods and services through the assumption of debt, any growth that shows up on the radar screen is illusory. That illusory growth is actually a note that has to be paid in the future, with interest. Thus, to consider deficit spending as a engine of economic growth is totally fallacious, and such fiscal irresponsibility is also detrimental to future economic growth as tax revenues have to be dedicated to not only pay off the debt (theoretically), but also pay off interest (in actuality). During the Rectum years, deficit spending, fueled mostly by what proved to be a totally unnecessary military build-up, averaged about $200 billion/year in a roughly $6.5 trillion/year economy, which constitutes about 3% of GNP: as the average annual growth of the economy during that period was comparable to that, and factoring in an inflation rate of approxiamtely 2.5% at the same time, the U.S. economy was actually in contraction during The Old Whoremaster's two terms of office, and the private sector was particularly underperforming. Thus, the moronic "supply side economics" that the rightwingers so vigorously promoted, coupled with the greatest period of military overspending in U.S. history, turned out to be one of biggest fiscal disasters ever experienced on the planet. You would think that The Powers That Be in Washington, and especially in the GOP, would have learned their lesson from this, and that the usually noncomprehending public would have been become acutely sensitive to this issue, but NO!!! Currently we're seeing Regan Redux in the budgetary and tax policies of the Handjob Administration: the same mistakes are being repeated again, and no one seems to care. The government was looking at deficits in the $200+ billion range through the end of the decade before Handjob was told by his bosses to trash Iraq: the cost of this military misadventure, and the other blunder in Afganistan, will cost the U.S. taxpayers $5 billion per month into the foreseeable future. This will not be paid by tax revenues as Handjob subscribes to the mentally retarded Republican manta of cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, so, more debt will be assumed by the government to fund this, adding considerably to the already deep and vast ocean of red ink the irresponsible and thieving GOP Congress has been churning out. Of course, this is a collision course with eventual economic disaster. It's interesting that when that supposed incompetant and GOP target of hatred and ultimate disrespect, Bubba Clinton, was in office, the federal budget was balanced for the first time in 20+ years, and there was a significant government surplus for the first time in a generation, but then Handjob gets appointed to the Chief Executive spot and we're back to the same old fiscal irresponsibility of the Rectum years, only this time, we're looking at deficits in the range of $350 billion per year. Maybe this is comforting and encouraging to the droolers, but I find it very disconcerting. Compounding this disquieting trend is Handjob's multi-trillion dollar giveaway to the superwealthy, which is just going to additionally fuel the deficit increases. What is grossly irresponsible about this is, after major bipartisan efforts were made over a number of years to balance the budget and generate surplus, the GOP gets total control of the White House and Congress and decides to squander enhanced tax revenues by giving huge refunds to the already wealthy instead of paying down the debt incurred largely as a result of the idiotic tax policy of their icon, The Crapper, I mean, The Gipper. As I am a fiscal conservative, I find it criminal that Handjob's tax policy is essentially a bribe of his well-heeled constituency (i.e., those greedheads who will contribute heavily to his 2004 re-election bid) when their tax refunds should actually be revenues earmarked to clean up the huge financial mess caused by the last ill-advised experiment in supply side economics undertaken by the imbecilic GOP. So, not only will Handjob's tax policy lead to financial contraction due to the negative effect of deficit spending, but dumping war debt on top of it all is a very reckless, short-sighted strategy that further destabilizes a very troubling economic picture for years to come.

Wouldn't have been a bad reason really, but that ain't it.

I've never believed that war sparks economic growth. I'm going to look into this, but I really doubt it is a valid argument.

This would be a morally reprehensible reason. I have very serious doubts that it was one of the motivational factors because for one thing, I’m sure not seeing the results. I think there is a very weak argument for the diversionary tactic theory as well.

It's like I said before. This war will cost a lot more than any oil we might receive from Iraq. If there is anything we should have learned from the World Wars and the Cold war is that dangerous regimes spread unless they are removed.

Economic growth might occur as a result of this war, but that is no reason to justify going to war.

War hurts economic growth except in the military-industrial complex.

If anything it was perhaps used to distract the Americans from the economy, but I hardly doubt that even President Bush believed that this war alone would stimulate economic growth.

Sure, the economy has gotten much better since the war began, but we are rating on for the reasons of the war. I just dont think that this was a reason for liberating the Iraqi regime. The economy will recover, give it time.