ebrown_p wrote:Quote:
I trust Bush to do things differently when it is proved to be prudent to do so and I trust him to tell us pretty much like it is as much as he can without jeopardizing the national security or undermining the chances for success.
Bush doesn't do things differently when it is proved to be prudent (i.e. getting real international support).
What is "real international support"? How do you define it?
Quote:He doesn't tell us "pretty much" like it is. He started with "Mission accomplished" and in spite of all all the evidence to the contrary he still can't admit that Iraq isn't going well. Only a fool or a partisan could defend him on this.
Nice use of the typical Democrat drivel. He started with 9/11 has not relented since. Iraq is not going well for the insurgents and terrorists trying to keep a democratic government out of the middle east. For a war, Iraq is going damn well. Only a fool or a partisan could be so blind as to not see that.
Quote:His policy both jeopardizes the national security and undermines the chances for success in the real "war on terrorism". As Kerry pointed out, although there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (and Bush knows it) Bush let Osama escape while pouring troops and money into Iraq.
Explain to me how his policy does anything of the sort? His policy
IS the war on terrorism. National Security is 100 times better now than it was 9/10. There are plenty of connections between Iraq and terrorism. I don't recall it being a war on Bin Laden, but a war on terrorism.
Bush let Osama escape? Please. That's a retarded statement.
Quote:Of course you will be voting for Bush in November.
I am betting (and praying) that more than 55% of American will not share the miraculous "consistency" that you and Bush somehow maintain in the face of clear evidence that you are wrong.
I will be voting for the best candidate. You will be voting for whomever is not Bush. Way to help screw the nation.