What if the electorate were foolish enough to give Bush a...

well I expected all you nattering nabobs of negativity to come up with this sort of stuff but really folks how could you possibly expect the trinity (Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft) to last another 4 years without Zellmillering all over the cabinent room. Messy for sure but almost mandates a Hitlery landside for a followup.

Ahh Nabob, good to the last drop.

kickycan wrote:"As far as the war on terrorism goes, I believe that it will become ever more apparent to the American public that the war in Iraq is a distraction from, and not a deterrent to terrorism. But it will be too late."

It may already be. The damage Bush has done (making us less safe by diverting attention and resources from real terrorists, alienating our long-standing allies with arrogance and disrespect when we clearly need to work with them, overtly and covertly) - this damage will take years to correct.

Baldimo wrote: "He won according to the US Constitution". Well, .... there was that whole Florida thing ......

-----------------------------------


Four more years with Bush will see an escalation and intensification of the divisions here and abroad the he has created. There wil be no "getting behind our president", no "coming together".

Here in the US, he has deliberately divided Americans: by twice insisting upon tax cuts that favor the wealthy, by turning a completely deaf ear to health care issues, by putting young Americans in harm's way with an ill-planned, unjustified act of vengeance which has rendered us less safe from the very real threat of terrorism, by shamelessly pandering to religious extremists who are hatefully driven by intolerance and bigotry. The divisions are very real, they cut very deep, and they will be the defining characteristic of George W. Bush's legacy.


Abroad, we can expect to see the terrorists continue to use his arrogant, destructive, unilateral actions against a sovereign Muslim nation to feed their ranks. Our allies will give at best guarded support for anything he proposes. He has insulted them and denigrated the diplomatic process; any attempt to reach out will now be viewed with justified scepticism as he has no credibility. He will have no ability whatsoever to address the problems in the Middle East or elsewhere, as he is viewed not as a statesman, or a leader, but as a rude, limited, selfish, narrow-minded fool.

So, four more years ?

I hope not. For all freedom-loving, fair-minded, truly "compassionate" human beings, .... I hope not.

You mean the part where no matter how they counted the votes Bush won FL? You mean the liberal courts of FL ruling against more recounts? You mean how the Supreme Court decided that it was a state issue and pushed the ruling back to the lower court that said Bush had won?

Yeah that FL thing.

By the way, I love it the way you guys ignore a relevant post. Don't have the answers to what I said before? Just makes me feel all the more RIGHT!

Zellmillering? Ooh, I like that one, dys! Gotta write that down...

Keep writing folks.

I'm enjoying this thread.

Like many here...I dread what Bush and his handlers could do with a mandate of 1.

We can only hope that the voters come to their senses.

Baldimo wrote: "By the way, I love it the way you guys ignore a relevant post. Don't have the answers to what I said before? Just makes me feel all the more RIGHT! "

Or "all the more ignored"

BTW, where does it say Baldimo shall direct the discourse on this thread?"

I started a thread that provided a list of basically indefensible Bush appointees, only one Bush supporter showed up, and she didn't even try to defend the appointments, for obvious reasons. (The appointments are indefensible.)

hhttp://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32977
"Women of A2K, have you seem this ?"


Well, guess that makes ME "more right", too !!!

(perish the thought)

(The link is not working. ???)

What can we expect?

Well here's what Cheney had to say this past week...


Cheney Backs Off Hard-Line Comments
By Staff and Wire Reports
Sep 10, 2004, 11:49

Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday tempered comments he made earlier this week that warned of the risk of another terrorist attack if Democratic Sen. John Kerry were elected president.
In an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cheney said he wanted to "clear up" the stir created by his remarks, which he made Tuesday in the Des Moines, Iowa.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney said in an interview with the newspaper during a campaign swing through the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin where he is working to bring swing voters to the Republican side.

The vice president said what he had meant was that if the United States is attacked again, he believed Kerry would fall back on a "pre-9/11 mind-set" on foreign policy instead of the "pre-emptive" doctrine pursued by President Bush.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States the Bush administration adopted a policy of pre-emptive military action to attack foes before they could become a threat.

So I took another look at the PNAC policy suggestions and... Sure enough, that's what Bush is following. If you want to know what to expect militarily, read PNAC. (would provide link, but can't use my search - it's been hijacked)

Yeah, sure! That's what he meant.

NOT!

If he meant that...why not say that...rather than what he did?

Or is he taking speaking lessons from the moron?

Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin, was on Charley Rose last night and made the point that given the present economic policies of the Bush Government we may not be able to wait four more years before serious damage is done to the nations economic well being.

Did anybody hear Donald Rumsfeld on the tube today? He twice said Saddam Hussein when he clearly meant Osama.



So what would make Rumsfeld twice make the same identification mistake? He equates the two? He can't remember all the lies that have been told? He is getting senile? He's tired and needs to take a nap? None of these make me any happier about the possibility of four more years of this mis-speaking, mis-handling administration which is incable of admitting their errors. "Wouldn't be statesmanlike... must keep up a good front.... it's a vision thing."

Piffka you silly goose, was he also chewing gum at the time?

Hussein, bin Laden, whatever, those damn arabs are all the same .....

Re: What if the electorate were foolish enough to give Bush


On Aug. 1, 1972, Lt. Bush was suspended from flying status, due to failure to accomplish his annual medical examination. Why couldn't Bush do something as simple as show up for a medical examination? The ANG spent tons of money training Bush as a "fighter pilot." (Nowadays, the Air Force spends over a million dollars on every fighter pilot it trains.) Why would Bush and some of his superiors allow all of Bush's fighter pilot training and government money go to waste when it would have been so simple for Bush to get a physical examination?

Because this is my 666th post, I want to share a theory as to "why" Bush disobeyed a direct order and refused to attend the physical examination to maintain his flight status with the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush did not want the medical examination to reveal the mark of the beast that was developing on his body. Bush avoided the examination by seeking a transfer to another unit in a non-flight status. He made a decision to waste all of his highly expensive "fighter pilot" training and get suspended rather than undergo a medical examination. What was he trying to hide? Hmmmm.

Three Million Jobs gone and replaced with a few hundred thousand jobs that don't pay as well? 1000 dead in a war with no conclusion is sight or a desire for one?

The damage is done. Why let Bush or the Supreme Court have a second chance?

Lets get out and vote and make sure it's "anybody but Bush!"

We will. Go Johnny Go! Johnny be good!