Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

.
To that I can only say maybe, Maybe your right and than again you could be dead wrong. I would suspect there are others who feel as he does in the diplomatic service however, for whatever reason will ride out the storm and hope for a better tomorrow.

au's quote: "To that I can only say maybe, Maybe your right and than again you could be dead wrong. I would suspect there are others who feel as he does in the diplomatic service however, for whatever reason will ride out the storm and hope for a better tomorrow." I agree. c.i.

I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake. I'm beginning to believe that a philanderer and a liar is less dangerous than an upright but ignorant man who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world.

The best way to support our troops is to try to prevent the Bush administration from sacrificing their lives for the hidden agenda of the crazy neoconservatives in his administration. Young Americans should not die because a bunch of chicken hawks have a cockamamie idea that they can bring liberal democracy to the Middle East by making war. That's like trying to sell pork barbecue in Mecca. What the president is intent on doing is committing a crime against humanity.

Charley Reese

.

I'm so glad you cleared that up. I had been under the impression Pakistan, India, and North Korea had all recently played the Preemptive Nuclear Threat Card, while Iran had indicated she had the autonomous potential to do so. I'm relieved to discover I was mistaken. With this information and the reduction in The Terror Alert Level, I can finally begin to sleep at night.




timber.

You have GOT to learn how to click on a link, timber. Those are Charley Reese's word's, not mine.

Surely you would not have mistaken me for a Bush supporter...ever, would you? :wink:

you never know

:wink: :wink:



timber

Now these are comments from the blogosphere, and I will link them for anyone who requests, but because I DO endorse the point (and furthermore wish I had written it) if you take offense with them, feel free to take up your objection with me.

George Bush made these remarks earlier this week: "It's an interesting moment for the Security Council and the United Nations. It's a moment to determine for this body, that we hope succeeds, to determine whether or not it is going to be relevant, as the world confronts the threats to the 21st century."

Great men, men like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Cordell Hull founded the United Nations. Elected leaders of great member nations have actual informed opinions on how to conduct international affairs.

At what point did this simpering, inarticulate, embarrassing excuse for a leader decide that all of these men were irrelevant, and that he and he alone possessed greater knowledge and insight than all of them and those before them? When and how did his minions and cheerleaders suspend disbelief, conjuring up hallucinations of emperor's clothes that are not there, to arrive at the conclusion that this man, this lucky sperm club poster boy, has opinions or even a fleeting random thought that should be weighed on the same scales as great men of intelligence and accomplishment?

And now, we are to let this buffoon and his shadowy handlers lecture us and the rest of the world as to what is irrelevant?

OK, then. Whatever. No wonder we are the laughing stock. History will judge us for electing (if you can call it that) this imbecile. This President will be the one judged irrelevant, if he doesn't destroy the planet first. We can only hope that the rest of the world doesn't decide WE are irrelevant and leave us behind before we can remove this embarrassment and apologize for inflicting him on the world.

BillW, "Proforma financial picture" will be developed by Arthur Andersen, after this administration hires them as "consultants." c.i.

Seems like a lot of people who don't like Bush are banking on the economy being bad. I have to wonder what the cumulative effect of so much negative wishful thinking might be.

So, I take it you believe all these Americans are hoping the economy tanks, the war is a disaster, and the country suffers?

trespassers: since the title of this topic is "lets talk about replacing GWBush" i think its fair to say that the respondents have a clear agenda thats more than likely to be biased against GWBush. To expect otherwise is naive.

No, but I think it is naive to think that none of them think that way.

Tres
No one wants to see the economy tank. But what they also do not want to see an administration that has no concept or desire on how to stop the bleeding. I don't think that anyone wants to lose their livelihood and not be able to support themselves or families with the essentials of living. This president is a failure in almost or should I say in all areas of government.
To say or even infer that people want the economy to tank inorder for Bush's approval rating to fall is absolutely ludicrous

I was not commenting on the people in this discussion, but on the people of the US.


I disagree. I believe some people are actually that partisan.

I don't doubt there are those "On the Fringe" who derive satisfaction to the point of glee at what they percewive to be setbacks for either Theis Administration, or for The US in general. Still, they are always a factor, and a noisy one. More folks, I suspect, are concerned over potential negative consequences and do not feel the risks are justifiable. Others are just as concerned over the same risks, but see the odds differently. The one certainty is that there is much uncertainty, and it is highly unlikely either best-case or worst-case scenariios will eventuate. The narrowness of The Turkish Vote just further confirms the deep, relatively equal polarization brought on globally by this crisis.



timber

Still doesn't chance the fact that Bush has caused a Finacial diaster and should be replaced in 2004!!!!!!!

BillW, the Fact is that The Economy is underperforming. That Bush or his policies are the proximate, or even a contributory, cause of the observed condition is a matter of conjecture, subject to and currently undergoing extensive debate. Any conclusion drawn or assessment made should be considered opinion.

It is a fact that some attribute this to Bush The Younger, and that some do not. The matter is hardly resolved. It is also a fact some find that hard to accept.



timber

It is a fact, from my sources, that this Bush cares to help his own, the hell with the rest of us - replace him in 2004 - the worst unPresident in American history!

BillW, It is obviously and undisputedly a fact that is your assessment of the situation, based on considerations of such informational resources as you have accepted. I would submit whether I agree with your assessment has no bearing on my assessment of your conclusions. What you claim may or may not be valid. The way in which some may press that claim at times is perhaps a bit less than objectively approached or validly supported, whatever merit the claim itself may or may not have. Sensationalism is not journalism, nor are allegation or opinion fact.
The problem with weighty issues is that they tend to come wrapped tightly in strongly opposing views.



timber