Denied By The White House And Tony Snow.....

But bush politicizes his 9/11 speech anyway. Who really thought he wouldn't? C*nt.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-09-12T044831Z_01_N11241683_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEPT11-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

But bush politicizes his 9/11 speech anyway. Who really thought he wouldn't? C*nt.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-09-12T044831Z_01_N11241683_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEPT11-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

He has a responsibily to lie, distort and continue to try to link 9/11 and Iraq? Only in the mind of the Brandons of the world.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

Twaddle! HE knew (or should I say, his scriptwriters knew, as he can't string enough big words of his own together to make a coherent sentence) EXACTLY what he was doing. There was no need at all to bring Iraq into his speech, as it was totally irrelevant. He was merely using this sad occasion to bolster opinion as regards to this pathetic war.

Tell me why he had to say what he said? Couldn't he just pay homage to those who died, and the heroes who worked so hard on that day, and leave it at that?

I can understand a mention of AQ, but why Iraq? Iraq had no connection to 9/11.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5328592.stm

The guy is a self serving wanker, pure and simple.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

But bush politicizes his 9/11 speech anyway. Who really thought he wouldn't? C*nt.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-09-12T044831Z_01_N11241683_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEPT11-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

And the Senate, singing the National Anthem was not politicizing the event?

Every politican in every town in America using this day for their own campaign is not politicizing the event?

Every Politician appearing on every efing news cast all freaking day long boo-wooing about 9-11 is not politicizing the event?

Sometimes your posts reflect more your hatred for anything Bush then your outright stupidity.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

Twaddle! HE knew (or should I say, his scriptwriters knew, as he can't string enough big words of his own together to make a coherent sentence) EXACTLY what he was doing. There was no need at all to bring Iraq into his speech, as it was totally irrelevant. He was merely using this sad occasion to bolster opinion as regards to this pathetic war.

Tell me why he had to say what he said? Couldn't he just pay homage to those who died, and the heroes who worked so hard on that day, and leave it at that?

I can understand a mention of AQ, but why Iraq? Iraq had no connection to 9/11.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5328592.stm

The guy is a self serving wanker, pure and simple.

The President was describing what has been done, and what must be done, to protect America from attack. It's a perfectly appropriate thing to talk to the country about on the anniversary of 9/11. His reasons for invading Iraq have been stated clearly by him in the past, and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America. Whether you share his views or not, he has every right to state them.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Shrub - "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

This sort of thing should not be mentioned in a day when people all over the world are remembering their loved ones who died on 9/11. It is crass.
The man has no class.

There are many of those people who vehemently disagree with his view, and he should not have forced this view upon them during what should have been a time of remembrance.

The man is an insensitive imbecile.

The President has every right, and even a responsibility, to state his own view of protecting America, and there is nothing even remotely improper or insensitive about it. The fact that on the 9/11 anniversary, he stated a viewpoint about protecting the US that you don't agree with doesn't constitute bad behavior.

Twaddle! HE knew (or should I say, his scriptwriters knew, as he can't string enough big words of his own together to make a coherent sentence) EXACTLY what he was doing. There was no need at all to bring Iraq into his speech, as it was totally irrelevant. He was merely using this sad occasion to bolster opinion as regards to this pathetic war.

Tell me why he had to say what he said? Couldn't he just pay homage to those who died, and the heroes who worked so hard on that day, and leave it at that?

I can understand a mention of AQ, but why Iraq? Iraq had no connection to 9/11.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5328592.stm

The guy is a self serving wanker, pure and simple.

The President was describing what has been done, and what must be done, to protect America from attack. It's a perfectly appropriate thing to talk to the country about on the anniversary of 9/11. His reasons for invading Iraq have been stated clearly by him in the past, and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America. Whether you share his views or not, he has every right to state them.

...and he should also have enough in the way of brain cells to know when it is appropriate to keep his big mouth SHUT.

and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America.

Brandon9000 wrote:

and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America.

And, as it is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein had neither connections to al Qaeda nor to 9/11, that would be the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq.

Actually, the American occupied Iraq has become a safe heaven for terrorists. And then, we know what Bush said about those countries who allow terrorists to roam freely, don't we?

(Maybe a second US army should re-invade Iraq, to get rid of the current government. I'm sure they would be greeted as liberators. With flowers. And sweets.)

Protect America? Republicans? Get real. They are just a bunch of corrupt, greedy, lying a$$holes who don't give a $hit about America. The whole lot of those filthy bastards are blood sucking parasites on the body politic.

This past Wednesday the US Senate, on nearly a straight party line vote refused to authorize $6.7 Billion (over 6 years) to reinforce US port security. That is one billion dollars a year to secure US ports from radiological, chemical and biological attack, and not a single Republican senator voted to protect us.

Consider this; the US spends $2 billion a week on military operations in Iraq, supposedly to prevent those terrorists from coming over here and attacking the US and those **** bozos wont spend $1.1 billion a year to actually protect us at home and this was the recommendation of the bi-partisan 911 Commision Report.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America.

And, as it is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein had neither connections to al Qaeda nor to 9/11, that would be the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq.

Actually, the American occupied Iraq has become a safe heaven for terrorists. And then, we know what Bush said about those countries who allow terrorists to roam freely, don't we?

(Maybe a second US army should re-invade Iraq, to get rid of the current government. I'm sure they would be greeted as liberators. With flowers. And sweets.)

Who has claimed that Hussein had a connection to 9/11? Not Bush. Not me. Why do you guys keep trying to refute something that few conservatives have ever claimed?

As for the rest of your post, your comments are irelevant. The question was actually whether Bush, as president, has the right to state his view of the issues concerning the protection of America from various types of dangers on the anniversary of a major, successful attack on America, and he does.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

and furthermore, he believes that if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is allowed to take over the country, it will be used it as a staging area for future attacks on America.

And, as it is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein had neither connections to al Qaeda nor to 9/11, that would be the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq.

Actually, the American occupied Iraq has become a safe heaven for terrorists. And then, we know what Bush said about those countries who allow terrorists to roam freely, don't we?

(Maybe a second US army should re-invade Iraq, to get rid of the current government. I'm sure they would be greeted as liberators. With flowers. And sweets.)

Who has claimed that Hussein had a connection to 9/11? Not Bush. Not me. Why do you guys keep trying to refute something that few conservatives have ever claimed?

As for the rest of your post, your comments are irelevant. The question was actually whether Bush, as president, has the right to state his view of the issues concerning the protection of America from various types of dangers on the anniversary of a major, successful attack on America, and he does.

Since Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11 why would it even be mentioned in a memorial for 9/11 unless he WAS trying to tie the two together?

Iraq wasn't tied to 9/11. Iraq wasn't a threat in 2001. Iraq isn't a threat today. What possible reason would he have to even mention Iraq at a 9/11 memorial? Please enlighten us.

If Bush is allowed to mention other threats at a 9/11 memorial then why didn't he talk about North Korea? Iran? China? Our growing deficits? the number of people with AIDS?