Why do you still support Bush?

Joe Nation wrote:

You know what? I've read that Podhoretz piece maybe a dozen times or more and you know what I'm struck with every time?

Nobody got it right.

Conservatives here seem to think, and Podhoretz certainly seems to think, that because everyone was about of the same mind on the WMDs that that gives the President of USA some cover, but it doesn't. It just makes him just as wrong as everyone else. Not a good position to be in if you are supposed to be leading rather than being part of the herd. I wouldn't follow any leader who, once he found out he's been had, wouldn't change course. If I was Bush I'd be really really pissed at the ComIntel and the SatIntel people over there at NSA. They **** him.

Oh, and us too.

So, what are we doing, George, to make sure we know what we are talking about when it comes to say NUCLEAR weapons in North Korea?? or Iran? and are you really sure Libya has stripped itself of it's nuclear programs.? Have you expanded the number of on-the-ground eyes, you know, the kind of work Valerie Palme used to do before.... well, you know.

The answer is no. That's right. Despite the damning facts that none of our intelligence agencies, or anyone else's, came close to knowing anything for real about Iraq, we still don't have any kind of a working presence in Iran or North Korea. Isn't that pathetic? We continue to use SatIntel and a dozen crunching Cray computers to tell us what is going on. Probably good enough to see something major like the fueling of a rocket, but not that six North Korean assassins, disguised as farming equipment buyers, had traveled though China and disappeared.

If I was George I'd call in every swinging dick at NSA and the CIA and tell them to be damned sure about anything they were going to tell him, but if they were wrong, he's have them shot. (That would get their flabby data-mining asses in gear.)

Iraq is only the biggest mistake that Bush has made SO FAR. He now faces the other two of the Axis of Evil and both of them could give a sh*t what we think. He's had four and a half years to fix the intelligence agencies of the US, I don't think he's even knocked on the door over at the Puzzle Palace.

So I guess he'll be going with whatever everybody thinks rather than be a leader.

Joe(He's been thinking about doing the Social Security speech again)Nation

Yep, he was wrong. What was he supposed to do, apologize, pack up and leave?

A good leader listens to the advice of thoe experts around him. NO ONE can be expected to be an expert in as many things as the president is responsible for. That's why he has a cabinet and advisors.

Valerie Plame sat in an office for quite sometime before her name was "outed". There are plenty in the CIA that still perform that function. So why pretend she had some fantastic secret role in the betterment of mankind?

I too hope that the cleaning house in the Intelligence agencies has helped. Bush has certainly shaken things up.

A leader leads. He takes advice and decides.. he is a decider...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yep, he was wrong. What was he supposed to do, apologize, pack up and leave?

A good leader listens to the advice of thoe experts around him. NO ONE can be expected to be an expert in as many things as the president is responsible for. That's why he has a cabinet and advisors.

Valerie Plame sat in an office for quite sometime before her name was "outed". There are plenty in the CIA that still perform that function. So why pretend she had some fantastic secret role in the betterment of mankind?

I too hope that the cleaning house in the Intelligence agencies has helped. Bush has certainly shaken things up.

A leader leads. He takes advice and decides.. he is a decider...

McGentrix, you are correct, Bush cannot do everyones job. He must rely on the countless people in the bureaucracy, of which the CIA is just one small part, to do their jobs. What do some people expect, Bush go do the intelligence work for the CIA?

One thing that bugs me is that even conservative leaning people are in some cases now saying we are 100% sure their was no newer WMD in Iraq. How can anyone say that yet? The jury is out.

Another point not often mentioned is that the CIA is now doing their intelligence from satellites. Satellites tell you a few things, but not the real nitty gritty. The old agency wherein we had numerous people on the ground, infiltrating enemy organizations, has been reformed into what we have now, in part because Democrats said the Cold War was over and we can quit supporting the CIA very much, and I even remember it seems that maybe even some suggesting it should be totally done away with, although I would need to research that. I don't think there is much question however that the Clinton administration de-emphasized the work of the intelligence gathering functions. Libs will scream, here you go again blaming Clinton, well, sorry but that is what I remember.

0 Replies

Bush in Europe With Spate of Issues
Concerns on North Korea, Iran Top President's Agenda for G-8

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; A14

ROSTOCK, Germany, July 12 -- President Bush arrived here Wednesday night trailed by crisis as he began a delicate diplomatic mission to hold together fragile international coalitions he has been building while tensions rise from Asia to the Middle East.

Parallel confrontations with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs had reached new intensity even before Air Force One left U.S. airspace. By the time he landed here, the president faced a new escalation between Israel and its Arab neighbors and a new spat with Russia 48 hours before he heads there for a summit.

A one-day stop here to receive a ceremonial barrel of herring and share a dinner of wild boar with his new best European friend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, will be followed by a weekend of meetings with fellow leaders of the Group of Eight in St. Petersburg. Nonproliferation, democracy, energy and other issues are on the agenda.

The tone for the meetings was set Wednesday when Russian President Vladimir Putin took a jab at Vice President Cheney for his recent criticism of Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure tactics against neighbors. "These kinds of comments from your vice president amount to the same thing as an unsuccessful hunting shot," Putin said on NBC's "Today" show, referring to Cheney's hunting accident earlier this year.

The White House chose not to respond. At the same time, Bush's decision to come to Merkel's home turf in what used to be East Germany functioned as a statement about the benefits of once-communist countries embracing Western-style democracy and free markets.

At the top of the president's agenda this week are North Korea and Iran, both of which have defied international pressure in recent days -- Pyongyang by testing several missiles and Tehran by failing to embrace an incentives package to give up uranium enrichment.

In both cases, Bush wants to rally allies such as Germany and Japan while persuading Russia and China to go along with stronger action. Although China is not a member of the G-8, its president, Hu Jintao, will attend as an observer.

"It's a threat if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon," Bush told foreign journalists before leaving Washington. "It's a threat to world peace. It's a threat to all of us. It's a threat for North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon. It's a very destabilizing event in the Far East. So we're working very closely with each other to get it done."

At home, Bush faces Democratic criticism that he has been ineffective in handling Iran and North Korea. "Our security will continue to be weakened if you fail to rally our allies in St. Petersburg and produce real achievements on these critical issues," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and several other Senate Democrats wrote Bush in a letter Wednesday.

Crisis issues often overshadow the official agenda at G-8 summits, but this weekend's meetings will be especially sensitive for Bush because of the host. Russia has never before led a meeting of the G-8, which started out in 1975 as a club of the world's major industrialized democracies and admitted Russia in 1998 even though it did not qualify in either category.

At a summit in Alberta, Canada, in 2002, with feelings of international solidarity running high after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the seven other leaders agreed to let Putin host this year.

They took that step despite the increasingly authoritarian direction already evident in Moscow at the time. Since then, Putin has further tightened his hold over political life in Russia, ending the election of governors, consolidating his control over national television and eliminating the most potent sources of opposition.

"All seven of President Putin's guests in St. Petersburg have some regret over their decision in Alberta to give Russia the chairmanship of the G-8," said Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and a former deputy secretary of state. As for Putin, "he does welcome the fact that these two simultaneous crises with Iran and North Korea will make his guests less likely to want to concentrate on Russia's internal political direction."

Putin, who has set energy security, education and infectious diseases as the formal topics of the summit, bristles at discussion of Russian democracy, deeming it a continuation of Cold War hostility and unwelcome interference from the outside. After Cheney, during a May speech in Lithuania, strongly criticized Russia's behavior, Putin referred to the United States as "Comrade Wolf," who "eats without listening."

In his NBC interview, Putin denied that Russia was backsliding: "As Mark Twain said in respect to his own life, the rumors of the death of our democracy are highly exaggerated." He added: "We have changed radically. The Soviet Union is no more. But it seems that our partners have yet to make such far-reaching changes to their own thinking."

Bush has let Cheney do the talking for him, in apparent hopes of inoculating himself against criticism for going to St. Petersburg. Bush also sent a top diplomat to a meeting of opposition figures in Moscow this week and he will meet with activists in St. Petersburg on Friday. But national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Bush will not make a speech about democracy while in Russia, choosing instead to "speak frankly, but privately with President Putin."

Bush appears to hope this tack allows him to get business done with Putin on Iran, North Korea and other areas. The two sides managed to renew an agreement on decommissioning Russian nuclear weapons just in time for the summit and are scheduled to announce Saturday an agreement opening the door to extensive civilian nuclear cooperation for the first time. And the two sides are close to a deal that would allow Russia to join the World Trade Organization.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

0 Replies

So...??

Imposter, I can read the paper and follow the news. You don't have to plaster this forum with your cut and paste all the time. At least have a point to make. Or was your point the comment about Cheney? What does that have to do with the this thread?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush in Europe With Spate of Issues
Concerns on North Korea, Iran Top President's Agenda for G-8

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; A14

ROSTOCK, Germany, July 12 -- President Bush arrived here Wednesday night trailed by crisis as he began a delicate diplomatic mission to hold together fragile international coalitions he has been building while tensions rise from Asia to the Middle East.

Parallel confrontations with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs had reached new intensity even before Air Force One left U.S. airspace. By the time he landed here, the president faced a new escalation between Israel and its Arab neighbors and a new spat with Russia 48 hours before he heads there for a summit.

A one-day stop here to receive a ceremonial barrel of herring and share a dinner of wild boar with his new best European friend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, will be followed by a weekend of meetings with fellow leaders of the Group of Eight in St. Petersburg. Nonproliferation, democracy, energy and other issues are on the agenda.

The tone for the meetings was set Wednesday when Russian President Vladimir Putin took a jab at Vice President Cheney for his recent criticism of Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure tactics against neighbors. "These kinds of comments from your vice president amount to the same thing as an unsuccessful hunting shot," Putin said on NBC's "Today" show, referring to Cheney's hunting accident earlier this year.

The White House chose not to respond. At the same time, Bush's decision to come to Merkel's home turf in what used to be East Germany functioned as a statement about the benefits of once-communist countries embracing Western-style democracy and free markets.

At the top of the president's agenda this week are North Korea and Iran, both of which have defied international pressure in recent days -- Pyongyang by testing several missiles and Tehran by failing to embrace an incentives package to give up uranium enrichment.

In both cases, Bush wants to rally allies such as Germany and Japan while persuading Russia and China to go along with stronger action. Although China is not a member of the G-8, its president, Hu Jintao, will attend as an observer.

"It's a threat if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon," Bush told foreign journalists before leaving Washington. "It's a threat to world peace. It's a threat to all of us. It's a threat for North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon. It's a very destabilizing event in the Far East. So we're working very closely with each other to get it done."

At home, Bush faces Democratic criticism that he has been ineffective in handling Iran and North Korea. "Our security will continue to be weakened if you fail to rally our allies in St. Petersburg and produce real achievements on these critical issues," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and several other Senate Democrats wrote Bush in a letter Wednesday.

Crisis issues often overshadow the official agenda at G-8 summits, but this weekend's meetings will be especially sensitive for Bush because of the host. Russia has never before led a meeting of the G-8, which started out in 1975 as a club of the world's major industrialized democracies and admitted Russia in 1998 even though it did not qualify in either category.

At a summit in Alberta, Canada, in 2002, with feelings of international solidarity running high after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the seven other leaders agreed to let Putin host this year.

They took that step despite the increasingly authoritarian direction already evident in Moscow at the time. Since then, Putin has further tightened his hold over political life in Russia, ending the election of governors, consolidating his control over national television and eliminating the most potent sources of opposition.

"All seven of President Putin's guests in St. Petersburg have some regret over their decision in Alberta to give Russia the chairmanship of the G-8," said Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and a former deputy secretary of state. As for Putin, "he does welcome the fact that these two simultaneous crises with Iran and North Korea will make his guests less likely to want to concentrate on Russia's internal political direction."

Putin, who has set energy security, education and infectious diseases as the formal topics of the summit, bristles at discussion of Russian democracy, deeming it a continuation of Cold War hostility and unwelcome interference from the outside. After Cheney, during a May speech in Lithuania, strongly criticized Russia's behavior, Putin referred to the United States as "Comrade Wolf," who "eats without listening."

In his NBC interview, Putin denied that Russia was backsliding: "As Mark Twain said in respect to his own life, the rumors of the death of our democracy are highly exaggerated." He added: "We have changed radically. The Soviet Union is no more. But it seems that our partners have yet to make such far-reaching changes to their own thinking."

Bush has let Cheney do the talking for him, in apparent hopes of inoculating himself against criticism for going to St. Petersburg. Bush also sent a top diplomat to a meeting of opposition figures in Moscow this week and he will meet with activists in St. Petersburg on Friday. But national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Bush will not make a speech about democracy while in Russia, choosing instead to "speak frankly, but privately with President Putin."

Bush appears to hope this tack allows him to get business done with Putin on Iran, North Korea and other areas. The two sides managed to renew an agreement on decommissioning Russian nuclear weapons just in time for the summit and are scheduled to announce Saturday an agreement opening the door to extensive civilian nuclear cooperation for the first time. And the two sides are close to a deal that would allow Russia to join the World Trade Organization.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

How sad that this moron who became president is the one playing our chips. How sad for us...how sad for the rest of the world.

0 Replies

Quote:

A leader leads. He takes advice and decides.. he is a decider...

And thus far, how would you rate his decisions? The decision to invade Iraq was not wrong because the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong even if the intelligence had been right.

Ask yourself, who else besides George Bush decided that invading Iraq was necessary, include all the hair-splitting about whether he said or didn't say about the threat being imminent? Who else, having the same bogus intelligence decided that invasion and regime change was the right move? Anybody in the area? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Turkey? Israel? Nope. Not even Iran, who besides Israel, and maybe Kuwait out of spite, would be the most likely targets of Saddam.

How about in the rest of the whole frigging world? The rest of the world's countries holding the same bogus intelligence didn't come to the same conclusions as George W. Bush, they said "Saddam has WMDs. Yeah, so what? Pakistan, using stolen research, has the bomb and is selling the information to North Korea and Iran and probably Libya. Try to concentrate."

But George Bush, the cowboy decider, decided that Iraq was somehow the greater threat and here we are today. How much would say the world has been improved by his decision? Yes, we have in chains a brutal dictator. Well, e pluribus unum. Anybody else better off from George's decision? Us? No, we weren't threatened by Saddam, that was just the hype. You know who should love us like a brother, but doesn't?

Iran. George Bush has single-handedly eliminated two of Iran's biggest headaches, Saddam and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and has now created an opening for Iran to take real power in the area. They will have a nice Shi'a government to deal with in Iraq and they can pour a bunch of money into Hezzbollah in Lebanon to mess with Israel and create general unrest in Jordan and Syria. Thank you, George, you some decider.

And this bad decision is only one of many bad decisions that George has made, but ya'll feel free to keep supporting him while the rest of us are counting the days till we are rid of him.

Joe(still a bunch to go)Nation
PS CI's cut and paste, dear okie, nicely summarizes the deep doo-doo your/our not so hot at making decisions or friends President is in. Taint good, brother.

0 Replies

So if the rest of the world knew Hussein was no threat, Joe Nation, how come the U.N. spent all that time inspecting and passing how many resolutions, and threatening Saddam Hussein how many times? What was their point, Joe, was it just to keep the U.N. busy, just an exercise in futility? Was it just a trick or a conspiracy to convince Bush to be the cowboy? Joe, you stretch peoples credulity here.

That reminds me, have you ever been on a snipe hunt?

0 Replies

Newsflash, okie. If you're still a staunch Bush supporter, your credulity has lost all its virgin status.

0 Replies

Okie, what the rest of the world kept telling the cowboy was "Hold on. There are other more important things to take of."

Saddam was about as marginalized as anyone could be by early 2001, that according to no less an authority than Condelessa Rice. The UN was doing what needed to be done in Iraq in 2001-02, and told Bush as much. He didn't listen. His reply was he didn't need the permission of the UN to proceed and he attacked in March of 2003 backed by his coalition of the reluctant.

He pulled the trigger on the wrong target. Where is Osama? What the heck is Iran doing? And is there a way to get any responsible response out of North Korea?

I like to play eight ball against folks who think they will be okay if they take what they think are the easy shots first, don't you?

And no, (heh heh ) I've never been on a snipe hunt, but I've organized a few. I have taken a smart mouth or two out to the edge of a field and handed them a bag, and I do know of a US President who is presently holding such a bag.

Joe(I'll just stay the course, he says)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation, you have lost your grip on reality. Dubya's plan was to spread democracy and stability throughout the Middle East. Can't you see he has done that? Don't you watch the news?

0 Replies

Of course there will be exceptions, like Saudi Arabia.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
A leader leads. He takes advice and decides.. he is a decider...

And thus far, how would you rate his decisions? The decision to invade Iraq was not wrong because the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong even if the intelligence had been right.

In your opinion. I still believe removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, in my opinion. Do you honestly believe leaving Saddam in power was the right thing to do?

[/quote]Ask yourself, who else besides George Bush decided that invading Iraq was necessary, include all the hair-splitting about whether he said or didn't say about the threat being imminent? Who else, having the same bogus intelligence decided that invasion and regime change was the right move? Anybody in the area? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Turkey? Israel? Nope. Not even Iran, who besides Israel, and maybe Kuwait out of spite, would be the most likely targets of Saddam.[/quote]

UK, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Australia, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakstan, Canada... Quite a list of nobodies...

Quote:

How about in the rest of the whole frigging world? The rest of the world's countries holding the same bogus intelligence didn't come to the same conclusions as George W. Bush, they said "Saddam has WMDs. Yeah, so what? Pakistan, using stolen research, has the bomb and is selling the information to North Korea and Iran and probably Libya. Try to concentrate."

But George Bush, the cowboy decider, decided that Iraq was somehow the greater threat and here we are today. How much would say the world has been improved by his decision? Yes, we have in chains a brutal dictator. Well, e pluribus unum. Anybody else better off from George's decision? Us? No, we weren't threatened by Saddam, that was just the hype. You know who should love us like a brother, but doesn't?

Iran. George Bush has single-handedly eliminated two of Iran's biggest headaches, Saddam and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and has now created an opening for Iran to take real power in the area. They will have a nice Shi'a government to deal with in Iraq and they can pour a bunch of money into Hezzbollah in Lebanon to mess with Israel and create general unrest in Jordan and Syria. Thank you, George, you some decider.

And this bad decision is only one of many bad decisions that George has made, but ya'll feel free to keep supporting him while the rest of us are counting the days till we are rid of him.

Joe(still a bunch to go)Nation
PS CI's cut and paste, dear okie, nicely summarizes the deep doo-doo your/our not so hot at making decisions or friends President is in. Taint good, brother.

A free Iraq will be a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Progress is baing made and it would be foolish now to undo that progress. Don't you think the millions of Iraqi's not involved in the insugency deserve our support in making their country free and democratic?

0 Replies

Quote:

UK, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Australia, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakstan, Canada... Quite a list of nobodies...

Which of these called for the invasion of Iraq before George Bush?

Quote:

Quote:
The decision to invade Iraq was not wrong because the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong even if the intelligence had been right.

In your opinion. I still believe removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, in my opinion. Do you honestly believe leaving Saddam in power was the right thing to do?

Yes. I think we jumped the gun, We should have dealt with Al Queda on the ground in Afghanistan. We should have acted much more firmly with the Pakistanis. We needed the help (all Bushites hate that) of China, South Korea and Japan in dealing with North Korea and what we did was piss them off. (shrug)(right?)

I do hope there will be a free Iraq in the Middle East. What I believe will evolve is something more akin the other authoritarian regimes in the area. Even we, the USA, have become more authoritarian as this President has presided, so instead of freedom and democracy as his legacy George Bush will have given the world another chaotic nation in Middle East and, sadly, a less free United States.

Joe(I don't hate George, I don't hate anyone who's in over his head)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
UK, Italy, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Denmark, Australia, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakstan, Canada... Quite a list of nobodies...

Which of these called for the invasion of Iraq before George Bush?

Quote:
Quote:
The decision to invade Iraq was not wrong because the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong even if the intelligence had been right.

In your opinion. I still believe removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, in my opinion. Do you honestly believe leaving Saddam in power was the right thing to do?

Yes. I think we jumped the gun, We should have dealt with Al Queda on the ground in Afghanistan. We should have acted much more firmly with the Pakistanis. We needed the help (all Bushites hate that) of China, South Korea and Japan in dealing with North Korea and what we did was piss them off. (shrug)(right?)

I do hope there will be a free Iraq in the Middle East. What I believe will evolve is something more akin the other authoritarian regimes in the area. Even we, the USA, have become more authoritarian as this President has presided, so instead of freedom and democracy as his legacy George Bush will have given the world another chaotic nation in Middle East and, sadly, a less free United States.

Joe(I don't hate George, I don't hate anyone who's in over his head)Nation

There were few regimes in the ME more chaotic than Saddam's, or more likely to make mischief. It is possible that a stable, less despotic Iraq will actually provide more stability in the ME. If that is the result, then just like the end of the cold war, also at great cost to the USA, it will have been worth it.

So far as being less free, it is not George Bush's fault that there are people who wish to hurt, maim, and/or destroy us, and it is much more wise to blame those that do rather than those who are attempting to stop them from doing it. Looking at the history of attacks on the USA from the Carter administration forward, only an idiot would blame George Bush for the hatred directed at us by Islamofacist militant terrorists.

Evenso, the one freedom I no longer have as a result of Bush policies is the luxury of leaving for the airport at the last minute to board a flight and I can't go all the way to the gate to meet somebody arriving anymore. And its tougher getting onto military bases than it used to be. But that's about it.

The freedoms I don't have anymore or people would like for me not to have come from other segments of society. Some are okay. Some not so okay:

1) Freedom to smoke where I want
2) Freedom to celebrate Christmas or other religious holidays/occasions wherever I want
3) Freedom to purchase certain firearms with or without certain accessories.
4) Freedom to drive whatever vehicle I want
5) Freedom to buy whatever food I want
6) Freedom to say whatever politically incorrect thing might be on my mind.
7) Freedom to use my private property as I see fit.
8) Freedom to not be at risk from people known to intend me, my loved ones, and/or my property harm.
9) Freedom to reasonably discipline my kids
10) Freedom from forced charity

Etc. etc. etc.

It's pretty hard to lay any of this kind of stuff at the feet of our President.

0 Replies

Joe Nation, in case you missed the news, Congress backed Bush all the way, until of course they stick their political finger in the air and realize, hmmmm...., maybe politics tells me I should try to turn the tables on Bush. Yes, real honorable people, Joe. And don't repeat the spin that Bush knew stuff that Congress did not. That is part of the Bush opposition game plan, Joe, but it just doesn't work. In other words, its simply old fashioned dirty politics.

0 Replies

Fox wrote:
Evenso, the one freedom I no longer have as a result of Bush policies is the luxury of leaving for the airport at the last minute to board a flight and I can't go all the way to the gate to meet somebody arriving anymore. And its tougher getting onto military bases than it used to be. But that's about it.

That's what Joe has said; as we lose our freedoms, our borders are open and free for terrorists and illegals to come into our country by the thousands. Containers from all around the world come to our ports without any form of inspection for WMDs. The incompetence and destruction of the Amercan democracy by moron Bush has its supporters.Too bad logic is not one of your strengths.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Joe Nation, in case you missed the news, Congress backed Bush all the way, until of course they stick their political finger in the air and realize, hmmmm...., maybe politics tells me I should try to turn the tables on Bush. Yes, real honorable people, Joe. And don't repeat the spin that Bush knew stuff that Congress did not. That is part of the Bush opposition game plan, Joe, but it just doesn't work. In other words, its simply old fashioned dirty politics.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another would be to say that the whole frikkin world agreed, then later everyone but Bush and his blindly faithful had to rethink the mistake made by going into Iraq.

0 Replies

Is it any wonder that neocons can't see the middle east on fire and spreading?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

okie wrote:
Joe Nation, in case you missed the news, Congress backed Bush all the way, until of course they stick their political finger in the air and realize, hmmmm...., maybe politics tells me I should try to turn the tables on Bush. Yes, real honorable people, Joe. And don't repeat the spin that Bush knew stuff that Congress did not. That is part of the Bush opposition game plan, Joe, but it just doesn't work. In other words, its simply old fashioned dirty politics.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another would be to say that the whole frikkin world agreed, then later everyone but Bush and his blindly faithful had to rethink the mistake made by going into Iraq.

That's certainly another way of looking at it. But I can't find much evidence that much of anybody was rethinking it until it was time to put up or shut up. Some chose not to put up, but unfortunately nobody shut up despite the fact that many did a 100% about face so that they could justify their 'change of heart'.

It requires a great blindness to both history and realities, however, to lay it all at the feet of our President. It just wasn't the way the Bush hater seem to want it to be as others have quite adequately and eloquently explained.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is it any wonder that neocons can't see the middle east on fire and spreading?

cicerone, I don't know how long you have been alive, but the Middle East has been on fire for decades, and longer. Before Bush was born, this was going on, so don't try to accuse him of starting all of this.

0 Replies

Why do you still support Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know