1
   

George Bush's Legacy

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 06:53 am
Then again, nobody is ever gonna top SlicKKK KKKlintler for legacies...


Legacies come in many forms. Take Lou Gehrig for instance; Gehrig was one of the all-time great baseball players, and is yet chiefly remembered for having a heretofore unrecognized disease named after him. The same may ultimately hold true of Slick.

There are several inherent problems with trying to set the numeric records ala Don Giovanni and make it with literally hundreds of different women over a course of a few years. One is that the first thing which goes straight out the window is any notion of quality; you'll see these guys come home with Marilyn Monroe one night, and then Aunt Jemima (or something like Monica Lewinski which looks like the centerfold of some livestock journal) the next, with the same stupid ****-eating grin on their faces, since it's all really just the same to them.

Another problem in the case of politicians is that they make prime targets for blackmail and manipulation of themselves by conducting themselves like that. Slick couldn't get the simplest kind of security clearance which you'd need to be a janitor or a guard at the gate at any military base in America, and he was supposed to be commander in chief of our armed forces. That's insane. Another problem in the case of liberals particularly, is that it appears to be a vanishingly small step from believing oneself above man's laws to believing oneself above things like the laws of physics and the law of averages. For instance, thinking "I'm a Kennedy; there's no reason on Earth why I shouldn't be able to ski downhill, operate a camcorder, and play football all at the same time, the trees will get out of the way!" Or, in the case of Slick, thinking he could put the make on 50 different women in one day and that all 50 would be happy about it.

Something like that could lead to a psychic problem with taking "no" for an answer and, if we're to believe even a small fraction of what we read, it has. The claim which you read around the net is that the Paula Jones testimony includes something like a dozen different allegations of sexual assault and rape, that Slick had been out of control for a long time, and that a professional organization had been in place to keep a lid on this by means of bribery, intimidation, and whatever else gets the job done, and that this has invariably worked because, in each individual case, you had some poor woman on her own without any real resources up against an organization with the resources of one of the fifty states.

And then there's the problem of VD. Matt Drudge reported (11/2/98) that:

"White House intern Monica Lewinsky told Linda Tripp that President Clinton would cancel dates with her when he was flared with blisters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned from multiple sources in and out of government..."

Ouch!!! But, bad as herpes or whatever that is might be, TCD syndrome is a lot worse (e.g. http://www.nypost.com/102798/news/5800.htm):

"...The documents also include Jones' description of Clinton's distinguishing characteristic.

'His penis_ was ... crooked and gross. You know. That was the word she used, Jones' sister Lydia Cathey said in a deposition...

My own judgement is that that sort of thing does not come from microorganisms or viruses, but rather from close encounters with doors (in this case, probably a limo door and some chick who, like Paula, didn't want to hear about it), i.e.

Kiss it?? #### YOU, you STINKING PERVERT!!!!
SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMM!!!!!!!!

and hence the designation TCD (Tallywhacker Caught in Door) syndrome. As a child I had a cat with feline TCD (Tail Caught in Door) syndrome, and hence recognize the symptom.

And thus we come to the question of Slick's legacy, aside from being the only elected president ever to be impeached in the 200+ year history of the republic. As in the case of Gehrig, I suspect that Clinton's chief legacy will be having a new disease named after him, and that TCD syndrome will come to be known as "Slick Clinton's Disease".
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 05:44 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I wish he would go down in history as the only president ever executed for crimes against humanity... but of course he will die rich and comfortable in his bed.


Quote:
It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 05:48 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I wish he would go down in history as the only president ever executed for crimes against humanity... but of course he will die rich and comfortable in his bed.


Quote:
It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn


So what's the conflict?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 05:55 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I wish he would go down in history as the only president ever executed for crimes against humanity... but of course he will die rich and comfortable in his bed.


Quote:
It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn


So what's the conflict?


Has Bush been convicted of anything?
If he hasnt, then he cant be sentenced.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 06:05 pm
I was giggling like the school girls I teach when on the way home I heard that the supreme court (stacked with his own justices) decided that gitmo detainees were due federal court time. Wheeee! THIS may be his legacy, one of human rights violations.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 06:24 pm
gungasnaKKKe wrote:
Ouch!!! But, bad as herpes or whatever that is might be, TCD syndrome is a lot worse (e.g. http://www.nypost.com/102798/news/5800.htm):

PAGE NOT FOUND!!!!

gungasnaKKKe wrote:
"...The documents also include Jones' description of Clinton's distinguishing characteristic.

'His penis_ was ... crooked and gross. You know. That was the word she used, Jones' sister Lydia Cathey said in a deposition...

Even ugly penises deserve some lovin'.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 06:30 pm
Heres an interesting article about how Bush lied before going to war with Iraq.
It seems the left is so certain that Bush lied that they have overlooked a few things.
(Sorry for posting the whole article, but its an interesting read for anyone wanting the whole story and not just part of it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html

Quote:
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17



Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 06:54 pm
As to herpes you silly people, 1 in every 4 or 5 people over the age of something like 14 years have genital herpes. That means that there are more presidents who've had it than Clinton.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 07:36 pm
World class liars. These are the folks who were going to restore dignity to the WH. Such monumental deception. And the beat goes on, ...

Quote:

GOP Claims China Drilling Off Cuban Shores; Actually, That's False

To gin up support for off-shore drilling, the Right has an ace up its rhetorical sleeve: the Chinese in Cuba. Here's Vice President Cheney.

"[O]il is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government... Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply. Yet Congress has said... no to drilling off Florida.''

"Even the communists" is a nice flourish. Mix the red scare with the yellow scare and get Uncle Dick's own Orange Scare. Guaranteed to freak out Americans concerned about their energy security. Here's House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), piling on:

"Even China recognizes that oil and natural gas is readily available off our shores; thanks to Fidel Castro, they've been given a permit to drill for oil 45 miles from the Florida Keys."

Adds House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), "Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for oil in order to lower energy costs in that country."

Problem is, that's all false. Like, completely false. China is not currently drilling off the shores of Cuba; in fact, it doesn't even have a off shore drilling contract. What is does have is a permit to drill on Cuban land. "China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period,'' Jorge Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, told the Miami Herald. In fact, it is not yet drilling on Cuban land, either. The Herald added:

China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling. Western diplomats in Havana told McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge there is no Chinese drilling offshore.

The Congressional Research Service also debunks Republican claims:

"While there has been some concern about China's potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation. (Sinopec)"

In a Democratic-controlled Congress, off shore drilling is not going to expand any time soon. But the war against dishonest bombast never stops.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop_claims_chin.html

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 09:46 pm
Filler
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 09:46 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Heres an interesting article about how Bush lied before going to war with Iraq.
It seems the left is so certain that Bush lied that they have overlooked a few things.
(Sorry for posting the whole article, but its an interesting read for anyone wanting the whole story and not just part of it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html

Quote:
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17



Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.


This is important enough to bear repeating for any that may have missed it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 09:51 pm
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Green Witch wrote:
Finn, do you also believe in unicorns?


We shall see won't we?

Any attempt to define a sitting president's legacy almost always fails due to temporal myopia.


You must type totally by feel, Finn. Smile


Should anal retentive be hyphenated JTT?

I did this by just feeling, but I bet you can decipher it: fuk yoo Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2008 10:35 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I did this by just feeling, but I bet you can decipher it: fuk yoo Smile


That's easy to decipher, Finn and I couldn't agree more. He's just another one of those scummy Republicans.

You know you amaze me something. You can come out with the most radical republican/conservative bullshit, and then you come full circle and actively condemn one of their war crimes enablers.

You're a man of great contradictions, Finn. But I commend you for this noble stand.

Quote:
John Yoo's war crimes

Glenn Greewald

(updated below)

Yet again, the ACLU has performed the function which Congress and the media are intended to perform but do not. As the result of a FOIA lawsuit the ACLU filed and then prosecuted for several years, numerous documents relating to the Bush administration's torture regime that have long been baselessly kept secret were released yesterday, including an 81-page memorandum (.pdf) issued in 2003 by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (currently a Berkeley Law Professor) which asserted that the President's war powers entitle him to ignore multiple laws which criminalized the use of torture:

If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.

As Jane Mayer reported two years ago in The New Yorker -- in which she quoted former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora as saying that "the memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President's Commander-in-Chief authority" -- it was precisely Yoo's torture-justifying theories, ultimately endorsed by Donald Rumsfeld, that were communicated to Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib at the time of the most severe detainee abuses (the ones that are known).


It is not, of course, news that the Bush administration adopted (and still embraces) legal theories which vest the President with literally unlimited power, including the power to break our laws. There are, though, several points worth noting as a result of the disclosure of this Memorandum:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/02/yoo/

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:06 am
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I did this by just feeling, but I bet you can decipher it: fuk yoo Smile


That's easy to decipher, Finn and I couldn't agree more. He's just another one of those scummy Republicans.

You know you amaze me something. You can come out with the most radical republican/conservative bullshit, and then you come full circle and actively condemn one of their war crimes enablers.

You're a man of great contradictions, Finn. But I commend you for this noble stand.



Funny, but you never amaze me. You come out with the most radical Liberal bullshit...all of the time.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 05:49 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I did this by just feeling, but I bet you can decipher it: fuk yoo Smile


That's easy to decipher, Finn and I couldn't agree more. He's just another one of those scummy Republicans.

You know you amaze me something. You can come out with the most radical republican/conservative bullshit, and then you come full circle and actively condemn one of their war crimes enablers.

You're a man of great contradictions, Finn. But I commend you for this noble stand.



Funny, but you never amaze me. You come out with the most radical Liberal bullshit...all of the time.


The truth will do that, Finn. It's not meant to amaze. It's just there. When you identify with a group, as you often do, that severely, and regularly, distorts the truth, then it's hard for you to know where you stand.

It's nice, at least, that we're in agreement on Yoo. Again, it's nice to see you take a principled stand once in a while.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:02 am
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I did this by just feeling, but I bet you can decipher it: fuk yoo Smile


That's easy to decipher, Finn and I couldn't agree more. He's just another one of those scummy Republicans.

You know you amaze me something. You can come out with the most radical republican/conservative bullshit, and then you come full circle and actively condemn one of their war crimes enablers.

You're a man of great contradictions, Finn. But I commend you for this noble stand.



Funny, but you never amaze me. You come out with the most radical Liberal bullshit...all of the time.


The truth will do that, Finn. It's not meant to amaze. It's just there. When you identify with a group, as you often do, that severely, and regularly, distorts the truth, then it's hard for you to know where you stand.

It's nice, at least, that we're in agreement on Yoo. Again, it's nice to see you take a principled stand once in a while.


Part of the Bush legacy will be that after the 9/11 attack, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil.
So that while I admit that the 9/11 attack killed more people, 1 attack in the Bush years as compared to 3 terrorist attacks during the Clinton years.
The security plans put into motion by Bush must be working.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 10:29 am
mysteryman wrote:
The security plans put into motion by Bush must be working.


The alternative conclusion is that 9/11 was an aberration, and that our lead fisted response has been a waste of time and resources, that we have degraded our liberty and freedom for NOTHING, that we have completely destroyed our standing in the global community for NOTHING, that we have rubbed out our superpower status for NOTHING.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 10:52 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
The security plans put into motion by Bush must be working.


The alternative conclusion is that 9/11 was an aberration, and that our lead fisted response has been a waste of time and resources, that we have degraded our liberty and freedom for NOTHING, that we have completely destroyed our standing in the global community for NOTHING, that we have rubbed out our superpower status for NOTHING.


I would agree, except for the fact that the WTC was attacked by Islamic terrorists during the Clinotn admin.
Or did you forget that part?

That should have told the govt that the WTC was a target.

Lets also not forget the domestic terrorism that hit OKC, or the Islamic terrorists that destroyed 2 of our embassies overseas.

Those attacks also happened during the Clinton admin.

Yet the entire govt seemed to ignore those warnings, hence the 9/11 attack.
There have been no attacks since 9/11, so something the current admin did must be working.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 11:10 am
MM
Your not trying to tie the domestic terroism to the Islamiast terroism are you. I would like to see that done without fabricating any facts please.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 12:32 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Part of the Bush legacy will be that after the 9/11 attack, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil.
So that while I admit that the 9/11 attack killed more people, 1 attack in the Bush years as compared to 3 terrorist attacks during the Clinton years.
The security plans put into motion by Bush must be working.



mysteryman wrote:
Lets also not forget [...] the Islamic terrorists that destroyed 2 of our embassies overseas.

[...] There have been no attacks since 9/11, so something the current admin did must be working.



You're counting a terrorist attack on an overseas embassy as a "terrorist attack on US soil"?

In that case, I think you'll have quite a number of attacks to add to the list of "terrorist attacks on US soil" under Bush's watch.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 03:49:31