As for Lincoln, he didn’t even consider slavery the main issue. His main objective was stopping the country from being split into two. If it took keeping slavery to do it, he would have (and did; the emancipation proclamation freed nobody in the border states or NJ, both of which still practiced slavery; of course, its signing signalled the end of slavery. It would never survive.). He only “freed” the slaves in the Confederate States (which he didn’t control, remember) because he knew that this would weaken the South, making it easier for the North to win the war.

Lincoln was a great man I admire tremendously and a brilliant, inspiring leader during our country’s darkest hour, but his anti-slavery stance is often exaggerated.

I hope this helps! God bless you!

Abortion is not comparable. Abortion ENDS the life of one innocent person to (in the case of the health of the mother) MAYBE save another. A TOTALLY different situation.

I don’t think torture, by itself, is dignified at all. I agree. But I can certainly understand that if we are holding a terrorist that we know has information that could SAVE many lives and inform us of an impending danger to innocent people, then some type of coercion (call it torture if you want) to get that information MAY be justified. I think most reasonable people agree with that. I also agree it’s debatable though.

But this is WAR we’re talking about here. War is horrible in itself, but is conceivably a “lesser of multiple evils”. In such cases, the RESPECTFUL and DIGNIFIED thing to do is to MINIMIZE evil as much as possible.

However, the way many of the MSM have portrayed the case of torture as this black and white issue is misleading. Many have taken reality – that BUSH approved of some forms of coercion to help save innocent lives – and then distorted it as Bush being a TORTURER who breaks laws, hurts these nice honest clean-cut terrorists, and obviously doesn’t respect human lives. It’s agenda driven dishonesty with an obvious pure hatred for Bush’s reputation at the root.

If your answer is “yes, it saves lives” then having an abortion when Mother is in danger of losing her own life is also ‘dignified’

In my opinion it is LOONY to say that ANYONE who willingly and knowingly tortures another human being for ANY reason, respects the diginity of human beings. Sorry, it’s just ridiculous to say otherwise.

And yes, we need to educate the masses, but it takes great leaders to do that. Obama has the potential to be that. He’s the most powerful man in the world and is possibly one of the most natural leaders we’ve ever seen. That gives him the power to “educate the masses” like nobody else – if he were to use it for good. Unfortunately, he’s on the WAY wrong side of this issue which not only makes him useless in advancing the human rights of babies but makes him DANGEROUS in that he supports taking away more human rights of babies and providing for more deaths.

And as far as BUSH respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being. THere IS such a thing as a JUST war. Wars (which do kill people) can be fought in ORDER TO PROTECT the life and dignity of human beings. This was no doubt the intention of Bush and the many Americans who supported this war. And there is no doubt a greater RESPECT for IRAQIS within and around Iraq as a result of this war, removing Saddam, and giving the Iraqi people more freedom.

We can, of course, discuss whether we were misguided or made mistakes. And nobody knows for sure if it was truly JUST based on the evidence we thought we knew. But the intention was MORE respect and protection of human life.

There is no such thing as a JUSTIFIED abortion. Obama’s positions show no such intention.

This issue can only be solved slowly, one baby at a time, and it’s more about educating the masses, not politics or even leaders.

This statment is a joke. Again, Mr. Bush trying to paint HIS legacy as something it is not, trying to re-shape himself into something HE is not with words that don’t coincide with actions.

If you are going to start a questionable war and approve ANY sort of torture, you are disqualified from using statements about Life & Dignity, I’m sorry. The guy is delusional.

Further, the effects of what a prez does while in office, esp regarding abortion, may not be felt for decades later. So comparing numbers during their terms is insufficient.

THE primary way a president will effect the rights of the unborn will be through Supreme Court justices. Bush gets an A++ here. Obama will likely reverse that progress in his term.

There is no question that Barack Obama intends and has promised to make abortion MORE available to people. In fact, he wants to guarantee it as a RIGHT. Clinton is even fairly pro-life when compared to Obama’s extreme abortion agenda.

But ultimately, it will take a changing of hearts and minds of the people. We can’t just make abortion illegal – it’s gotta be unthinkable. But we can start with making it harder to have them and making it illegal – as it should be. There is no question that would be a huge step towards lessening abortions. And George Bush gets an A++ when it comes to those types of things.

Lincoln could not have ended slavery all by himself as president either. It took a lot more. But it first took a person to lead us. Obama is not that leader. And I believe history will show him as such.

I wasn’t pinning millions of deaths on Obama, just pointing out his lack of attention to it.

I don’t have time to go into every detail of what you wrote. But it is blanket statements like that that get repeated over and over again by MSNBC and the like without any perspective that has many Americans very misinformed about Iraq.

Here’s an example of what I mean – quickly:
To say that Americans are entirely responsible (let alone George Bush personally) for the majority of deaths in Iraq seems ignorant to me. Many if not most of the deaths of iraqi civilians occurred due to 1) terrorists targeting iraqis and 2) Saddam and then later terrorists and insurgents using civilians as cover (i.e. firing on US peacekeeping troops from behind innocent civilians or from civilian facilities). To sit back and say stats like that accusing George Bush (and indirectly our troops) with such culpability is wrong. If anything, Saddam Hussein and the other insurgent leaders are at fault for putting their innocent civilians in danger.

I’m not saying the US and our leaders are not partially culpable for certain mistakes we’ve made or bad decisions, but let’s keep it in perspective.

And as far as the torture stuff – come on. The kinds of “torture” that Bush approved of was water-boarding high up terrorists that knew information that would SAVE innocent lives (and DID so). TO leave that out of your comments is misleading and irresponsible.