Quantifying terror, how many will die stateside in a year?

brandon said:


However, although america does not have ties to terrorism (seeing as Bush is the only one they could tie with) and did not previously have ties to terrorism, they still bombed hundreds of thousands of people and crippled the entire next generation in the area. And the two most horrific things of it all was: Japan was about to surrender, and the atomic bomb was targeted at civilians. Rather than stop there, they dropped ANOTHER atomic bomb AGAIN targeted solely on civilians. This is what the President of the United States is capable of doing. And the President of the United States NOW is capable of doing much more than that without remorse. Although he hasn't dropped an H-bomb yet, he has already proven that he will destroy anyone who he has a grudge against (ie Saddam Hussein) at a small cost of thousands of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of American soldiers. And he still says 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'....it makes me wonder what his mission actually was...

Terror is in the mind of the beholder.

Mark Twain commented once that rumors of his death had been exaggerated.

Rumors of increasing fear have been exaggerated.

What? Me Worry?

I believe that the bombs should have been used on military targets, however, I note in passing that the Japanese were not about to surrender and the minute they did surrender with terms we found acceptable, we accepted it and stopped fighting them. I note also, that you have not in any way refuted, denied, or even discussed the contention of mine that you quoted.


How has he proven that he will destroy anyone he has a grudge against? It seems to me that what he has proven is that he will destroy dictators with links to terrorism, who sign surrender agreements agreeing to eliminate WMDs, and cannot be verifiably shown to have done so after many years of negotiation. Again, this is not related to the quotation of mine with which you started your post in which I assert that certain entities cannot be permitted to develop WMD.


His mission was exactly what he said it was, to insure that Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs. It's not very complicated.

Lest we forget The Boy who Cried Wolf was correct that there was a threat from a wolf.

It was his natural paranoid tendency that led to the blasé attitude that eventually resulted in the wolf entering undetected. If you cry wolf, you actually have to look out for wolves; crying doesn't protect sheep.

An in that case an invasion of the wolf pack probably would not have helped particularly if it was the wrong wolf pack.

"Friend, I would do thee no harm for the world, but thou standest near the argument at which I am about to shoot." Craven de Kere (on vacation from non-commercial work) "

Curious: That is a misquote of a Quaker quotation.

The homesteader who is a Quaker finds a thief in his house and with shotgun in hand tells him: "I would not shoot thee brother, but if thou dost not put down what thou hast in thy hand, I shall surely shoot where thou dost stand."

You might want to correct your "quotation."

A sensible statement. However, the conesequences of a particularly evil dictator, with a friendly relationship with terrorists, and a propensity for annexing neighbors having and continuing to develop WMD are much worse than the consequences of a wolf ravaging a village, and have to be treated as such.

As for crying wolf falsely, the total history of the thing with Hussein, and the state of our knowledge, made it not unlikely that Hussein was playing the inspectors for fools again.

brandon

you obviously don't realize the point I was trying to make. I don't oppose your statement that terrible dictators should not be allowed to stockpile weapons that could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands of people. The point I was trying to make was that BUSH is a terrible dictator who has been allowed to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons that could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands of people without anyone intervening or even caring. Saddam may have been a threat to America (note the: MAY HAVE) but only in the same way America is a threat to the rest of the world. You say that his goal was to ensure Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs, so why did he make a fool out of the UN Weapons inspectors? Why didn't he trust them? He well and truly believed that Iraq had WMD and he found...nothing, except possibly for the stuff his father gave to Saddam (I am not sure he even found those). My opinion is that Bush Jr. only went into Iraq because he knew Iraq had WMD, or at least HAD them. How did he know this? Because his father gave the weapons to Saddam.

I think I may have missed a bit. Oh yeah, as for the grudge thing I was exaggerating that and also the 'looking at them funny' thing. (those were the only things I was exaggerating, may I add) Anyway, why wouldn't he have a grudge on Saddam Hussien? I mean, he did embarress George Bush Sr.
As for the 'ties with terrorism' that Saddam had, he did have ties with terrorism (in fact he was a terrorist), however Bush CLEARLY STATED (which doesn't often happen) that Saddam had specific links to AL-QAEDA and OSAMA BIN LADEN. If you can find some factual evidence that supports the claim that Saddam DID in fact have ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden I would be very interested in seeing it.

Ooh, check out this dictionary definition of terrorism:
the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.

WOW! It's going to be hard to fight that! Hang on a sec! Isn't that what Bush does? Yep, I'm pretty sure it is. He uses violence (invading Afghanistan and Iraq), he uses intimidation (scaring everyone into thinking that any second they are going to die unless they vote for him, I could go into more detail but it would use up too much room) and his goal is to become President of the United States for four more years. And people like you are living proof that it is working.

He handled 9/11 very well may I add. So well that he used it to 'liberate' two countries, scare everyone into voting for him, and start an imaginary war on the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal so that he could (not in these words) say, "Because we're in a war we can't change presidents."

That's right, Mel Cheese. That's how I see it too.

You can fool some of the people most of the time.

Still hoping the impeachment process against Tony Blair will be debated soon (in Parliament, not here, but bring it on...).

McT

The most relevant answer I can give is that Hussein could not me allowed to accumulate WMD because he posed a substantial threat of using them, or giving them to terrorists who would use them. Neither Bush, nor Putin, nor Blair, nor most leaders of large countries pose a clear and present threat of using WMD capriciously since most large countries follow fairly risk averse policies with WMD.

Responding to a different statement of yours, Bush is not a dictator at all, since a dictator is someone who rules by force as opposed to elections, whereas the US has elections for president and other high offices regularly.

Saddam armed with WMD would have been a threat to the world in a very different way from the actions of the US. Once he had completed significant WMD development, he might have annexed Kuwait again, and then other of his neighbors in succession, and promised to use WMD on a massive scale against anyone who tried to intervene. Remember his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Kurdish women and children we not his accidental targets, but included among his intended targets.


Because they had had a very long time to do their work, even considering interruptions, and Hussein had tricked them before. Bush didn't wish to make a fool of the weapons inspectors, he wanted to resolve the WMD issue. Hussein might easily have been stalling while completing WMD development.


Well, since I favored invasion, I believe that he went in for the reason I favored it, which is also the reason he said he went in - because allowing Hussein to develop, manufacture, stockpile, and continue research on WMD was risking a terrible calamity down the road.


There are a lot. Here, for instance, is part of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. "


I do not believe that this is a valid definition of terrorism, since it includes every war ever fought. My definition would be "the intentional direction of violence against non-combatants." I note that you include Afghanistan in your set of examples. Do you not think we had the right to retaliate for 9/11? Even assuming that I agreed (which I don't) that Bush intimidates voters by warning of non-existent dangers, it would not consitute "terrorism" by any sane definition of the term


Why the quotes on the word liberate? Those countries were unusually brutal dictatorships and now both have elections scheduled. Bush did not start an "imaginary war" or a war for imaginary purposes. Hussein could not be allowed to accumulate and continue to develop weapons that could kill on the scale that WMD can (between thousands and a million per use depending on the WMD in question), and after a dozen years of trying to get him to verifiably disarm, the president acted to protect the world from the threat, and to enforce the terms of Hussein's surrender in Gulf War One.

brandon

I completely agree with George Bush about one thing, and one thing only, that he should have tracked down Osama bin Laden using military force. However, erratically firing missiles into Kabul (some even landing in Turkey (advanced technology my @$$)) wasn't quite what I had in mind.

I don't see how the dictionary definition of the word terrorism could possibly not be valid. The definition you are thinking of is one that the Bush Administration and the Fox Network formulated to suit their own needs. And I don't see how your point that 'it includes every war ever fought' has anything to do with it.

Alright, so Bush did liberate afghanistan and iraq, but the violence and death is still going on. The countries are in turmoil, people attempting to vote in afghanistan are being gunned down, and the americans pretty much left around 2002 to invade Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussien is pure evil, and so are the Taliban, but you can't just say, "We've destroyed your evil dictators, here's your country back." it just doesn't work.

Are you trying to tell me that there are still WMD in Iraq?
Whereabouts are they? Would you happen to know? Your troops have been there for, what? 18 months? They must've found something.

Your extract from the 9/11 Commision Report doesn't really support you.
Simply because he met up with an Iraqi officer in 1994 doesn't really mean that he had ties with Saddam. He may have talked to the officer and said he still didn't like Saddam. Your extract doesn't say anything about that. It was the Sudanese who arranged the meetings, not bin Laden.

Why all the hub bub now over potential WMD? Why didn't he go in before? My belief is that Bush (as I said before) worked 9/11 to his advantage and used it to invade Iraq for something that normally would be considered completely stupid. You say Bush "...acted to protect the world from the threat..." it is proven that there was absolutely no threat whatsoever. In case you can't add 1 and 2, it means: No WMD, no threat. And I believe there are no WMD in Iraq and there haven't been for the past few years.

I couldn't help but notice that no one really seems to care about Osama bin Laden anymore.

P.S You wouldn't happen to have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 have you? (for some strange reason, I doubt it)

one more thing. You say a dictator is someone who rules by force rather than election. does rigging an election count?

You are correct in that OBL, Al Qaeda, and associated groups are a deadly serious threat, and should continued to be pursued vigorously as the president is. In the real world, sometimes you have to do two things at once.


Your definition of terrorism was the use of violence and intimidation. This is clearly not a correct definition unless you consider every participant in any war to be a terrorist. This is not what most people mean when they use the term. That definition would make no disinction between a soldier who participated in WW 2 and acted completely honorably, and a person who strapped a nail bomb on his belt and blew up a public market, intentionally killing women and children. It is clearly more reasonable to define a terrorist as someone who intentionally attacks non-combatants as an actual intended target. Sorry about your dictionary, man.


After invading a country, not believing in establishing colonies, we have no choice other than to say "here's your country back." We don't just say it, however. We try to help rebuild, and if the people we fought didn't have free elections before, we help to get them started. I find your scornful dismissal of the fact that these people are no longer ruled by extremely brutal dicators to be in bad taste. I want to be crystal clear, however, that liberating them was not our primary motive for invasion.


I am not trying to tell you that there are still WMD in Iraq, although that is possible. We invaded Iraq when we did, rather than earlier, (a) because we kept hoping that they could be persuaded to live up to their surrender treaty and verifiably disarm, and (b) 9/11 brought home the idea of how vulnerable America is even to enemies who are not very powerful in conventional terms, amd how much worse 9/11 might have been had WMD been involved. You say:



This is extremely bad logic. No WMD does not mean no threat because we are talking about conditions at the moment of invasion. We are talking about the probability at the moment of invasion that WMD existed, as opposed to what was later determined to be true. Hussein had a history of seeking and building WMD, lying about them, and concealing them, not to mention using them. We had been trying to get him to verifiably disarm for a dozen years, and he had often demonstrated a desire to deceive the inspectors. At the instant of invasion, based on the totality of this history, there was a significant probability that he was still concealing WMD and WMD development programs. Because of the potentially ghastly consequences and the potential to have waited too long, we had to take this probability with the utmost seriousness. This is why we invaded. The fact that later on none were found doesn't mean either that there wasn't a substantial probability that he had them, or that it was not correct to act on the probability. If, at a given moment, the probability that proposition "A" is true is 50%, and later on it turns out that A is false, it does not mean that the probability was not 50% at that time.



You had said:



From: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19996.htm

A dictator is someone who rules his country by force, rather than by being chosen in an election. In the United States, presidents are chosed in elections held every four years. George Bush did not rig the election in which he was chosen. The people voted, resulting in a near tie in electoral votes, and the decision was reslolved, as it should have been, by the laws on the books and the court system. This does not in any way match the definition of dictatorship. Do you have any more unbelievably elementary questions to ask me?

"George Bush did not rig the election in which he was chosen."

No, and he wasn't chose by election either. And the supreme court rigged the process by which he was chosen since he was not chosen by election.

Justify it as "following the rules" but you leave the majority asking why the court could not have relinquished their power to overrule the will of the people.

I'm still asking. And I plan to vote against Bush again.

First of all, the question I was debating was whether Bush is a dictator. A dictator rules his people by force in a country that has no elections.

However, commenting specifically on what you have said, a presidential election was held. The result was a near tie that was going to be broken by Florida. The first count showed Bush the winner, but because Bush's majority there was so small as to be dependent on minor counting errors, Gore's team asked for a re-count. All counts showed that the Florida election was a virtual tie. There were only two sensible ways to interpret this - either that Bush won because of the initial count, or that no one knew who won. The latter view prevailed. This is exactly the proper jurisdiction of the courts, and the case rapidly went up the hierarchy to the Supreme Court. All of this is fair and in accordance with law. We all know what the Supreme Court decided. I am not sure which piece of this you consider to be unfair or not an election. Do you believe that the court system did not have jurisdiction? Do you believe that the Supreme Court ruling was legally incorrect? If so, what aspect of their argument do you despute? It all seems scrupulously legal and fair to me.

There are several points that made you screw yourself in your reply.

"I want to be crystal clear, however, that liberating them was not our primary motive for invasion."
Nor was was it even on your agenda, nuff said.

"I am not trying to tell you that there are still WMD in Iraq, although that is possible."
Ok then. That supports your case...how?
The only thing that suggested there were WMD in Iraq was flimsy evidence that has been proven to be wrong. Hardly enough to invade a country, no matter how evil the dictator. 9/11 proved how vulnerable America is even to enemies who are not very powerful in conventional terms. So you invaded Iraq because you were scared he might send over a dog with rabies? (joke) Face it, you were just scared of something that might have a snowballs chance in hell of happening. That's right, I said it! America was scared of someone who was about as aggresive to them as Gorbachev. Even if Saddam did have WMD what use would it be if he nuked America? You're obviously not thinking about what Saddam would achieve from it. Osama's goal was revenge against westerners, he did it because he could do it without easily being tracked down. He has so far survived because he wasn't a ruler of a country and because he planned it out in secrecy. If Saddam did that he would have been dead within a day. The whole world with have sympathy for America and the whole world will nuke Iraq regardless of the civilian casualties. That doesn't seem like something any person in his position would do. Saddam is a coward, he wouldn't risk his own life.

Woh! Colin Powell is prepared to trust the word of al-Qaeda operatives! Just out of interest, did they find that training camp?

Hmm...you blew that dictator thing way out of proportion. It was meant as a friendly joke, but, since you brought it up, there is more to the 2000 election than just the supreme court. I'll give a full listing of those things later. Right now I'm too tired.

PS Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11?

this is kinda long (well, replace the word 'kinda' with the word 'extremely'):

The 'rigging' of the election began long before Election Day 2000. In the summer of 1999 Katherine Harris, who was both George W. Bush's presidential campaign cochairwoman and the Florida secretary of state in charge of elections, paid $4 million to Database Technologies to go through Florida's voter rolls and remove anyone 'suspected' of being a former felon. She did so with the blessing of the governor of Florida, George W.'s brother Jeb Bush - whose own wife was caught by immigration officials trying to sneak $19,000 without declaring and paying tax on it...a felony in it's own right. But of course you Americans don't prosecute felons if they're rich or married to a governing Bush.

The law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida. And sadly that means 31% of all black men in Florida are prohibited from voting because they have a felony on their record. Harris and Bush knew that removing the names of ex-felons from the voter rolls would keep thousands of black citizens out of the voting booth.
Black Floridians, overwhelmingly, are Democrats - and sure enough, Al Gore received the votes of more than 90% of them on November 7, 2000.
That is, 90% of those who were allowed to vote.
In what appears to be a mass fraud committed by the state of Florida, Bush, Harris, and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the rolls, they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their life - along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanors.

How did this happen? Harris's office told Database - a firm with strong Republican ties - to cast as wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters. Her minions instructed the company to include even people with 'similar' names to those of the actual felons. They insisted Database check people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar Social Security numbers; an 80 percent match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list.
These orders were shocking, even to Bush-friendly Database. They would mean that thousands of legitimate voters might be barred from voting on Election Day just because the had a name that sounded like someone else's, or shared a birthday with some unknown bank robber. Marlene Thorogood, the Database project manager, sent an e-mail to Emmett 'Bucky' Mitchell, a lawyer for Katherine Harris's election division, warning him that, "Unfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives," or misidentifications. Never mind that, said ol' Bucky. His response: "Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let county election supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether."

Database did as they were told. And before long 173,000 registered voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls. In Miami-Dade, Florida's largest county, 66 percent of the voters who were removed were black. In Tampa's county, 54 percent of those who were denied the right to vote on November 7, 2000 were black.

But culling names from Florida's records alone was not enough for Harris and her department. Eight thousand additional Floridians were thrown off the voting rolls because Database used a false list supplied by another state, a state which claimed that all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida.
It turns out that the felons on the list had served their time and had all their voting privileges reinstated. And there were others on the list who had only committed misdemeanors - such as parking violations or littering. What state was it that offered Jeb and George a helping hand by sending this bogus list to Florida?
Texas.

On November 7, 2000, as black Floridians flocked to the polls in record numbers, many were met with a blunt rebuke: "You cannot vote." In a number of precincts in Florida's inner cities, the polling locations were heavily fortified with police to block anyone on Katherine and Jeb's 'felons list' from voting. Hundreds of law-abiding citizens looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote, mostly in black and Hispanic communities, were sent away - and threatened with arrest if they protested.

George W. Bush would officially be credited with receiving 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida. Is it safe to say that the thousands of black and Hispanic voters barred from the polls might have made a difference if they had been allowed to vote - and cost Bush the election?
Without a doubt.

On election night, after the polls closed, there was much confusion over what was happening with the counting of the votes in Florida. Finally a decision was made by the man in charge of the election night desk for the Fox News Channel. He decided that Fox should go on the air and declare that Bush had won Florida and thus the election. And that's what happened. Fox formally declared Bush the winner.

But down in Tallahassee, the counting of the votes had not yet been completed; in fact, the Associated Press insisted it was too close to call, and refused to follow Fox's lead.
Not so the other networks. They ran like lemmings after Fox made the call, afraid that they would be seen as slow or out of the loop - even though their own news reporters on the ground were insisting that it was too early to call the election. But who needs reporters when you're playing follow the leader - the leader, in this case, being John Ellis, the man in charge of Fox's election coverage. Who is John Ellis?
He's the first cousin of George W. and Jeb Bush.
Once Ellis made the call and everyone followed suit, there was no going back - and nothing was more psychologically devastating for Gore's chances of winning than the sudden perception that he was being the spoiler by asking for recounts, withdrawing his concession of defeat, tying up the courts with lawyers and lawsuits. the truth is that during all of this, Gore actually was ahead - he had the most votes - but that was never how the news media played it.

On election night, after the networks had first - correctly - projected the state of Florida for Gore. The cameras cut to a hotel room in Texas. There sat George W. with his father, the former president, and his mother, Barbara. The old man appeared cool as a cucumber, even though it looked like curtains for Sonny. A reporter asked young Bush what he thought about the outcome.
"I'm not conceding anything in Florida," Junior piped up, semicoherently. "I know you've all the projections, but people are actually counting the votes...the networks called this thing awfully earlier and people are actually counting the votes have different perspective." It was an odd moment in that crazy night of election result coverage. The Bushes, with their relaxed smiles, looked like a family of cats that had just wolfed down a bunch of canaries - as if they knew something we didn't.

They did. They knew Jeb and Katherine had done their job months earlier. They knew cousin John was holding down the fort at Fox election central. And if all else failed, there was always that team Poppy could count on: the United States Supreme Court.
As we all know, that's exactly what happened for the next 36 days. The forces of the Empire struck back, and they did so without mercy. While Gor was stupidly concentrating on getting recounts in a few counties, the Bush team was going after the holy grail - the overseas absentee ballots. Many of these ballots would come from the military, which typically votes Republican, and would finally give Bush the lead that denying the vote to thousands of blacks and Jewish grandmothers hadn't.

While Kim Baker was chanting his mantra - "It is not fair to change the rules and standards governing the counting or recounting of votes after it appears that one side has concluded that is the only way to get the votes it needs." - he and his operatives were doing just that.

A july 2001 investigation by the New York Times showed that of the 2,490 overseas ballots that ended up being included in the certified election results, 680 were considered to be flawed and questionable. Bush got the overseas vote by a ratio of 4 to 5. By that percentage, 544 of the votes that went to Bush should have been thrown out. Suddenly Bush's winning margin of 537 votes was down to a chilling negative 7.

Within hours of the election, the Bush campaign had launched their attack. The first step was to make sure that as many ballots got in as possible. Republican operatives sent out frantic e-mails to navy ships asking them to dig up any ballots that might be hanging around. Thousands of votes poured in - even some that were signed after election day. Now all they had to do was make sure that as many of these votes as possible went to W. And so the real thievery began.

According to the Times, Katherine Harris had planned to send out a memo to her canvassing boards clarifying the procedure for counting overseas ballots. Included in this memo was a reminder that state law required all ballots to have been "postmarked or signed and dated" by election day. When it was clear that George's lead was rapidly sinking, she decided not to send the memo. Instead, she sent out a note that said ballots "are not required to be postmarked on or prior to" election day. Hmmm.

What caused her to change her mind - and the law? We may never know, since the computer records of what happened have been mysteriously erased - a possible violation of Florida's Sunshine Laws. Now, long after the horse has left the barn, Harris has turned over her hard drives to the media for inspection - but only after her own computer consultant "looked them over."

"Equal Representation" Florida style, meant that the rules governing acceptance or denial of your absentee ballot depended on what county you were from. Perhaps that would explain how counties where Gore won, only 2 out of 10 absentee ballots with unclear postmarks were counted; in Bush counties, predictably, 6 out of 10 such ballots made it into the final tally.

When the Democrats complained that ballots that didn't follow the rules shouldn't be counted, the Republicans launched a fierce public relations campaign to make it look as if the Democrats were trying to screw the men and women who were risking their lives for your country. A Republican city council member from Naples was typical in his hyperbole: "If they catch a bullet, or fragment from a terrorist bomb, that fragment does not have any postmark or registration of any kind."

As the New York Times found out:
344 ballots had no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day
183 ballots were postmarked in the United States
96 ballots lacked appropriate witness information
169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes that weren't signed properly, or came from people who hadn't requested a ballot
5 ballots came after the November 17 deadline
19 overseas voters voted on two ballots - and had both counted.

All of these ballots violated Florida law, yet they all were counted.
BUSH DIDN'T WIN! GORE DID.
Author: Michael Moore (Stupid White Men)

There, I hope that clears everything up. In case you forgot, THE 2000 ELECTION WAS RIGGED!! I could have added more but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.

Just out of interest, when is the US election?

Are you still at it? Good Lord! When are you going to finally get to the now? Who cares about the prior election? It's a done deal. WMD? He used chemical and biological ones on hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people...besides he is inextricably tied to funding and supporting the Al Queda. Face it MC we are in Iraq and we have no exit plan. MC: this is reality. Get it? You can't change the channel. Try as you might. All that left-wing Commie crap does not wash.
Hail To The Chief!

right...so whats done is done, there is nothing anyone can do about it...so you're going to let it happen again by voting for Bush?

something gives me the feeling you haven't read any of the past posts, or seen the news, seeing as you still think that there are WMD in Iraq, you think Bush was right all along, you are voting for someone who stole an election, destroyed your economy, lost more jobs than the Great Depression, has changed his 'Leave no child behind' policy to 'Leave behind everyone who can't afford it', used billions of your tax-payer money in Iraq (after he went there for an unjustified reason), and a page full of other reasons. And now your saying, "Who cares about history, Bush says he's better so he must be."

What left wing Commie crap? Oh, you mean the TRUTH! Who could possibly believe that!? Lies are so much easier to digest.

Typical, uninformed, stupid, short-sighted Republican.