Another vacation for President Bush

[Avatar4321]

You know, I sure am glad your girlfriend's family isn't Republican. {quote}


One last word....Your condescending comments like above about "my girlfriend" and such just makes you look idiotic....and very immature.
FYI-I am a happily married man with a son who just graduated college....not that you deserve to know anything about me.

And " You haven't seen anything yet" (about this administration at fault)
I gave about 5 or 6 of them ....LOL...Jeff Gannon...Bush giving medals to people responsible for the worst national security failure in history, No sound energy policy...etc.etc.etc.
Still wearing blinders I see.
And about Clinton. I'm one who can admit Clinton's mistakes and successes.
You "wolves" ...all you can talk about is "blow jobs".
20 years from now...if there is ever another Republican elected after the Bush fiasco....you'll still be blaming Bill Clinton for any misdeed a Republican does.

There is no accountibility at this White House. There is no objectivity at this message board.

Bush didn't lead us to war under false pretenses. There is a strong environmental policy. Bush isn't in bed with the Christian right and blurring separation of church and state. You can't find anything wrong with that.
I understand the drill.

Dude, is it really that difficult to use the quote system properly? It makes your posts a pain to read when you have to decipher where your posts begins and the other ends.

We've had a sound energy policy for years. look for more oil to take our dependence off foriegn supplies and look for alternative sources as well as raising standards to conserve energy when possible. why is that difficult for the Democrats to acknowledge?

You democrats cant seem to grasp the concept that Bill Clintons faults go deeper than the Blow jobs. They were just a symptom of a bigger problem. North Korea now has nuclear weapons because Clinton let Carter negociate a deal where we gave the North Koreans nuclear materials for a promise not to make war from them. How stupid is that? And then John Kerry announces in the first debate that he was going to do the same exact things with the Iranians. Hello?! Anyone hope in the Democrat party? China's nuclear technology advanced decades because of Clintons policies. Which is still raises the interesting question if the campaign scandals with accepting money from the Chinese for political campaigns has anything to do with said nuclear advancement. Of course it will never been investigated because the media killed the story and Slick Willie was in charge of what crimes to prosecute. No, the Blow job was just something that showed what a real sack of dung he was by cheating on his wife. But if you think thats the only reason Clinton's legacy was tarnished you are in a fantasy world. Hell 911 enough is enough to tarnish his legacy forever.

Second, There is no Bush fiasco. Quite frankly he is doing a marvelous job. We've liberated several nations. People are free and able to become educated and determine their own paths. Several others nations have disarmed because of it. We've gathered the terrorists in one place to kill them all. Took down some ruthless dictators. Nearly trippled funding for education. The recession President Bush inherited from our former President is now a strong economy. People are able to keep more of their own hard earned money. Life is pretty good under President Bush. problem is you are too paranoid to enjoy it for some reason.

 

[Beefheart]

[/QUOTE]

was refering to the Felony DUI/manslaughter charge brought against another person with the name 'George Bush' in Texas...it was shown to be a completely different person...Just more half truths to make a point...Libs are very good at it...mental disorder that is!
(different person with the same name)[/QUOTE]

Oh really.....You would think you would know you hero a little better.
different person eh?...where di you hear that from?...Sean Hannity?

Zoom wants a link...you think it's a different person.
Mental disorder eh?
I'll do one better.
How about the DMV record....
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

 

[Avatar4321]

and Bush.......buffoon...."Is are children learning" NO !
attacking a soverign country in response to 9/11...even though they had nothing to do with 9/11....1800 Americans dead...thousands maimed..
Our soldiers benefits cut...and having to buy their own armor...
North Korea developing nuclear weapons on Bush's watch...while he wastes our money, military and resources in Iraq.Terrorists groups developing and expanding while Bush is focused on Iraq. Americans now thinking we are more unsafe under Bush. The worst deficit in the history of the country.
The largest spending president in history. The first president never to veto a spending bill. The rich getting richer...and the poor getting poorer. (That is a fact)
The first person to run for president who was a felon.
That is the George Bush legacy.
Makes a Republican proud eh?

I'm outta here...ciao.

Our children are learning. And the fact is they want to learn more! There is a study that says that high school students want to learn more and would rise up to the challenge if more was simply expected to them.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050809-110406-1485r.htm

I can't believe a grown man can't understand why we are going into Iraq because of 911. It's not difficult to understand. We can either do something to try to make the world safer or we can do nothing and hope that the terrorists wont hit us again. 911 proves that doing nothing is far more dangerous than doing something. Therefore we can either take the terrorists and the regimes that support them out or we can do nothing and hope that nothing happens. Saddam supported terrorism. He had shown ample desire to continue with his weapons programs. Taking Him out eliminates that threat and brings freedom to an area of the world that has never been free. Heck yeah, thats better than doing nothing. The concept really isnt that difficult to understand and its very sound if you simply think about it. Besides which we should have taken out Saddam in 91. And at the very least Clinton should have done it when Saddam kicked out the inspectors. What is odd to me is you cant seem to understand why we are doing it.

N Korea obtained nuclear weapons under Clintons watch. They just announced that they had them under Bush. Hello?! do you honestly think that the North Koreans suddenly broke the stupid deal Clinton made with them when he left office and somehow in less than a year had nuclear weapons? They've been working on them the last decade and Clinton giving them nuclear material as a bribe not to start anything certainly didnt hurt them.

BTW everyone is getting richer. Thats what happens in a growing economy. Our poor are among the richest 5% of the worlds population. And if you think about it, it's not humanly possible for the poor to get poorer. In order to be poor you dont have anything to begin with in the first place. how can you get less than nothing? Have you ever thought about what is said before you echo it?

 

[insein]

was refering to the Felony DUI/manslaughter charge brought against another person with the name 'George Bush' in Texas...it was shown to be a completely different person...Just more half truths to make a point...Libs are very good at it...mental disorder that is!
(different person with the same name)

Oh really.....You would think you would know you hero a little better.
different person eh?...where di you hear that from?...Sean Hannity?

Zoom wants a link...you think it's a different person.
Mental disorder eh?
I'll do one better.
How about the DMV record....
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

god it realy isnt that fucking hard to do quotes. You click the one button that says Quote. I mean i get who im talking to but is anyone truly this retarded? every damn post. sorry continue your inane babble about some lie you heard from some other a-hole. Im sure we're all going to be taught a lesson.

 

[Beefheart]

god it realy isnt that fucking hard to do quotes. You click the one button that says Quote. I mean i get who im talking to but is anyone truly this retarded? every damn post. sorry continue your inane babble about some lie you heard from some other a-hole. Im sure we're all going to be taught a lesson.

You talk about quotes?....??????? I gave all you right wingers the link that proves Bush's DUI...what you asked for...( as if it was such a mystery)
and you babble on about....I really don't know.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post...about even when you prove something to you ##$$%#% you still come back with some inane comment.
You're hopeless !

 

[insein]

was refering to the Felony DUI/manslaughter charge brought against another person with the name 'George Bush' in Texas...it was shown to be a completely different person...Just more half truths to make a point...Libs are very good at it...mental disorder that is!
(different person with the same name)

Oh really.....You would think you would know you hero a little better.
different person eh?...where di you hear that from?...Sean Hannity?

Zoom wants a link...you think it's a different person.
Mental disorder eh?
I'll do one better.
How about the DMV record....
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

BTW, since when are first offense DUI's felonies? In all the states that a DUI is a felony you must have 2 prior records of DUI before it is considered a felony. Texas is one of those states with a 3rd time felony offense. A felon Bush is not. Besides, it was 1976. I wasnt even born and Carter was president. Im sure Bush was alittle upset that a socialist moron was in power.


http://www3.madd.org/laws/state.cfm?StateID=TX

Felony DUI
Comments: 3rd and subsequent offenses

 

[Beefheart]

I can't believe a grown man can't understand why we are going into Iraq because of 911. It's not difficult to understand. {quote}

I can't believe a grown man can't see that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. So we attack Iraq.
Sounds logical right?
If we would have really gone after Bin Laden...instead of Saddam Hussein...we might have made better inroads against terrorism.
Bush bungled that...and then he bungled the post war planning.
And now...more than 59% of America sees that...and knows that.
You and your ilk are in the minority now. Most Americans don't agree with you. Sure...at this board they do...but America rejects this war now.
Terrorists attacks have increased in the past 2 years since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That data was just released. You need a link?...or maybe you read the newspapers.
Americans have seen the folly of the Bush war in Iraq...and all the pontificating and right wing mumbo jumbo won't change that fact.

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

This has been Bush's biggest failure...and that's saying something considering the lack of post war planning of the war in Iraq....which completely took them by surprise. I thought that the Republicans were the "efficient " party . How in the hell could they have not taken into account the post war planning?
Did the post- it on their computer that said POSTWAR PLANNING fall off ?

There were some many other lies and mistakes in your piece...but I don't have the time nor energy to get into that now.

 

[Annie]

Regarding the quotes, they are asking for something like this:

I can't believe a grown man can't understand why we are going into Iraq because of 911. It's not difficult to understand.

I can't believe a grown man can't see that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. So we attack Iraq.
Sounds logical right?
If we would have really gone after Bin Laden...instead of Saddam Hussein...we might have made better inroads against terrorism.
Bush bungled that...and then he bungled the post war planning.
And now...more than 59% of America sees that...and knows that.
You and your ilk are in the minority now. Most Americans don't agree with you. Sure...at this board they do...but America rejects this war now.
Terrorists attacks have increased in the past 2 years since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That data was just released. You need a link?...or maybe you read the newspapers.
Americans have seen the folly of the Bush war in Iraq...and all the pontificating and right wing mumbo jumbo won't change that fact.

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

This has been Bush's biggest failure...and that's saying something considering the lack of post war planning of the war in Iraq....which completely took them by surprise. I thought that the Republicans were the "efficient " party . How in the hell could they have not taken into account the post war planning?
Did the post- it on their computer that said POSTWAR PLANNING fall off ?

There were some many other lies and mistakes in your piece...but I don't have the time nor energy to get into that now.

 

[insein]

I can't believe a grown man can't see that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. So we attack Iraq.
Sounds logical right?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
more in the link above

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:


Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.

Then, the connection:


The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.

Beefy
If we would have really gone after Bin Laden...instead of Saddam Hussein...we might have made better inroads against terrorism.
Bush bungled that...and then he bungled the post war planning.
And now...more than 59% of America sees that...and knows that.
You and your ilk are in the minority now. Most Americans don't agree with you. Sure...at this board they do...but America rejects this war now.
Terrorists attacks have increased in the past 2 years since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That data was just released. You need a link?...or maybe you read the newspapers.
Americans have seen the folly of the Bush war in Iraq...and all the pontificating and right wing mumbo jumbo won't change that fact.

Polls are meant for morons. 82% of people know that. Here it is anyway.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm

By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory. love those misleading questions dont ya

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

"I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said when asked about the poll results. "Success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region."

Alittle disigenuous wouldnt you say.

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

Ha! This truly shows your ignorance. Clinton might as well have sold nuclear weapons to Kim jong il and saved hi mthe time. After all he gave him the nuclear power and enriched uranium to build the damn things. Oh but he promised not to make nukes. He was a bad man and lied to poor Billy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310221200.asp

Actually, the North Korean cheating wasn't the least bit surprising. The CIA had thought North Korea wouldn't comply with the agreement all along. "Based on North Korea's past behavior," the CIA reported in 1995, "the [intelligence] community agrees it would dismantle its known program, [only] if it had covertly developed another source of fissile material."

The U.S. came to believe in 1997, for instance, that North Korea had built an underground nuclear facility in Kumchang-ri. The administration still dishonestly maintained that all was well with the Agreed Framework. On July 8, 1998, Albright told Congress, the Agreed Framework had "frozen North Korea's dangerous nuclear-weapons program." When intelligence about the suspect site at Kumchang-ri became public in August 1998, Albright told frustrated senators at a hearing that she hadn't known about the information until later in July. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, present at the hearing, had to interrupt her: "Madame Secretary, that is incorrect." She had been told many months earlier.

Beefy
This has been Bush's biggest failure...and that's saying something considering the lack of post war planning of the war in Iraq....which completely took them by surprise. I thought that the Republicans were the "efficient " party . How in the hell could they have not taken into account the post war planning?
Did the post- it on their computer that said POSTWAR PLANNING fall off ?

There were some many other lies and mistakes in your piece...but I don't have the time nor energy to get into that now.

Yes you have so much on your plate. What with the going to moveon.org and then coming back with your talking points, then proceeding to post an incoherent mantra of bullshit. Thanks again for your visit but give us something worthwhile next time. Besides, how dumb are you and your liberal friends for being out smarted by an idiot, moron, inefficient felon? please.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can't believe a grown man can't understand why we are going into Iraq because of 911. It's not difficult to understand. {quote}

I can't believe a grown man can't see that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. So we attack Iraq.
Sounds logical right?

It's a shame you had the quote working for like a post and now you are back to this crap.

Nope not really. Terrorists have no national loyalty. They are loyal to themselves and thats it. They come from all walks of life. It doesnt matter if all the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. All the terrorists could have been born and raised in Canada. The war on terror isn't a war of retribution for 911. The war on terror is a long term battle to prevent future terrorism. In order to prevent future terrorism you have to shut down the regimes that fund it. Saddam funded terrorism. He was more than willing to give weapons to them. Hence, if the war on terror was going to be won, we would have had to take out Saddam at some point of time. Better sooner than later, because later may have been too late. Besides which we have gained immense strategic position in the middle east. Iraq is the center of everything. We now have a two front attack open if we ever need to take Iran out in a hurry. Not to mention a 2 front attack open on Syria. Plus we have cleaned up a mess that should have been taken care of a decade ago. It's win win.

I think your inability to undestand this is because you seem to think tha the war on terror is merely an effort to get revenge for 911. You don't seem to understand that it is a comprehensive effort to defeat global terrorism. Not just an execution for Bin Laden. We are trying to prevent future terrorism attacks not get revenge for old ones.

If we would have really gone after Bin Laden...instead of Saddam Hussein...we might have made better inroads against terrorism.
Bush bungled that...and then he bungled the post war planning.

We did go after Bin Laden. He has been sufficiently neutralized. He hasn't been able to do much damage from wherever he is hiding if he is even still alive. However, the war on terror doesn't end with Osama Bin Laden. Osama is the symptom of the real problem. And that is the lack of freedom in the middle east that breeds these people. Free the middle east and you will have struck a serious blow against terrorism. Iraq is a key to that due to its central location.

And now...more than 59% of America sees that...and knows that.
You and your ilk are in the minority now. Most Americans don't agree with you. Sure...at this board they do...but America rejects this war now.

You know it must be nice in your dream world. But you really shouldnt pull numbers out of your ass like that.

Terrorists attacks have increased in the past 2 years since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That data was just released. You need a link?...or maybe you read the newspapers.

President Bush never proclaimed that the mission was accomplished you goon. He landed on an air craft carrier that was going home the next day. They accomplished their mission in Iraq. They went home the next day cause they did what they were sent there to accomplish. When are you libs going to stop beating up that straw man and look at what really happened?

Americans have seen the folly of the Bush war in Iraq...and all the pontificating and right wing mumbo jumbo won't change that fact.

The Iraq war wasn't a follow and a majority of Americans dont think it was! I can't believe you are trying to say otherwise. We just liberated a nation and helped install a free government in less than two years. Thats one of the most amazing success stories in military history!

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

You have a hard time understanding this so ill be clear for you It takes time to develop weapons. The weapons were being developed under the Clinton administration because Clinton was stupid enough to trust them and gave them nuclear materials to help with their nuclear development. You somehow seem to think that Bush got into office and all of the sudden the North Koreans broke their deal and magically had done all the research to have nuclear weapons.

This has been Bush's biggest failure...and that's saying something considering the lack of post war planning of the war in Iraq....which completely took them by surprise. I thought that the Republicans were the "efficient " party . How in the hell could they have not taken into account the post war planning?
Did the post- it on their computer that said POSTWAR PLANNING fall off ?

You know its odd but the only people who seem to think there wasnt any postwar planning is the Democrats. Seems to be there was a pretty good plan set. Install an interim government. Hunt down terror cells. Train Iraqi troops. Help them develop a Constitution and hold free elections. Build schools, hospitals, roads, etc. All of which have been going pretty darn good. And considering we've done something that has never been done in the history of the world so quickly id say the plan is a pretty darn good one.

There were some many other lies and mistakes in your piece...but I don't have the time nor energy to get into that now.

Well obviously you didnt have the time to go into any of them since there werent any lies or mistakes.

 

[no1tovote4]

You talk about quotes?....??????? I gave all you right wingers the link that proves Bush's DUI...what you asked for...( as if it was such a mystery)
and you babble on about....I really don't know.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post...about even when you prove something to you ##$$%#% you still come back with some inane comment.
You're hopeless !

Bush's DUI was not a felony, DUI isn't a felony unless you kill or injure somebody while doing it. That didn't happen with GWB. There was a site that, for a little while, found a report of somebody with the name of George Bush that did commit a felony DUI by killing a person, but that was simply a case of somebody with a similar name.

Bush has not committed a felony, no matter how many times you provide a link to Bush's DUI.

Your limited knowledge of the subject is in itself evidence that you are only parrotting and not providing us with thoughtful debate. The funny part is you are parrotting from a source with some of the oldest and most baseless attacks as if he were still running for President or something.

 

[no1tovote4]

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

This is incredibly inaccurate. During Clinton's term he paid N. Korea to end their work toward Nukes, they simply took the money and food and used it to fund and feed the scientists that created the nukes. It was Clinton's failure that led us to the N. Korea issue, rather than dealing effectively with them from strength he gave them strength and paid them to build the weapons we may later see used against us. He gave them the rope with which to hang us so to speak.

 

[Gunny]

You talk about quotes?....??????? I gave all you right wingers the link that proves Bush's DUI...what you asked for...( as if it was such a mystery)
and you babble on about....I really don't know.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post...about even when you prove something to you ##$$%#% you still come back with some inane comment.
You're hopeless !

SO what's your point? Bush got a DUI in 76. He has said as much himself. SO WHAT have you proven, Einstein?

 

[Gunny]

I can't believe a grown man can't understand why we are going into Iraq because of 911. It's not difficult to understand. {quote}

I can't believe a grown man can't see that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. So we attack Iraq.
Sounds logical right?
If we would have really gone after Bin Laden...instead of Saddam Hussein...we might have made better inroads against terrorism.
Bush bungled that...and then he bungled the post war planning.
And now...more than 59% of America sees that...and knows that.
You and your ilk are in the minority now. Most Americans don't agree with you. Sure...at this board they do...but America rejects this war now.
Terrorists attacks have increased in the past 2 years since Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That data was just released. You need a link?...or maybe you read the newspapers.
Americans have seen the folly of the Bush war in Iraq...and all the pontificating and right wing mumbo jumbo won't change that fact.

And as far as nuclear weapons and North Korea...
let me give you some data even you can understand...
North Korea under Clinton: 0 nuclear weapons developed
North Korea under Bush: 6 nuclear weapons developed

This has been Bush's biggest failure...and that's saying something considering the lack of post war planning of the war in Iraq....which completely took them by surprise. I thought that the Republicans were the "efficient " party . How in the hell could they have not taken into account the post war planning?
Did the post- it on their computer that said POSTWAR PLANNING fall off ?

There were some many other lies and mistakes in your piece...but I don't have the time nor energy to get into that now.

We are the minority now? Where? At DU? Your complete lack of vision and understanding of the political and strategic situation in the Middle East is glaringly obvious.

You have done nothing but whine and whine how you can't believe we can't understand your blathering and we're just picking on the poor, misunderstood lib, but you haven't said a damned thing. Your editorializing is not gospel. Your opinion is not being accepted because your political bias is as obvious as day.

And you're a freakin' baby. How many times in one thread can one threaten to leave and not come back?

 

[sagegirl]

I am very disappointed in the present administration, Im angry about the growing gap between words and deeds. We need a leader who can speak intelligently and persuasively for his/her agenda. The insincerity of Bush is reflected in some of his off the cuff comments (bring em on) and his lack of both fluency and enthusiam. I doubt whether it matters if Bush is on vacation or not, he always appears "out to lunch" to me.

 

[insein]

I am very disappointed in the present administration, Im angry about the growing gap between words and deeds. We need a leader who can speak intelligently and persuasively for his/her agenda. The insincerity of Bush is reflected in some of his off the cuff comments (bring em on) and his lack of both fluency and enthusiam. I doubt whether it matters if Bush is on vacation or not, he always appears "out to lunch" to me.

So because the man cant speak well he therefore is "out to lunch?" I fail to see how a man's words are judged more than his actions. I look at what Bush has DONE. He said he'd fight the terrorists on their soil. He has. He said he would eliminate regimes that sponsored terrorism. He has eliminated 2 (afghanistan and iraq) and neutralized 2 others (pakistan and libya). He has said he would help the ecnomy through tax cuts. We have the lowest unemployment rate in history and the lowest in the current world. Everything he has said he would do, he has done. So i fail to see "how" he said what he said has anything to do with his actions. If he failed to come through on what he promised, then maybe we can attack him for his eloquence.

Actions speak louder than words. Words are cheap.

 

[GotZoom]

I was going to post something about Beefy ranting on and on and no providing any links.

But then I see he did.

His proof to the "felon" accusation is a DUI from 1976. Not even a felony. All that ranting and raving about terrible Bush is and this is all he could come up with..and it doesn't even prove his point?

There is a word for that..... owned?

I can't really add much more than what my esteemed collegues already have. Beefy, every point you have made has been destroyed. You have nothing left but your opinion, which, by itself is important of course; but unless you can give us some basis on how your opinion is formed, it's just blah blah blah.

People have provided links to their rebuttal of your misguiding rants. You don't (well, except for that one lame one). You just go on and on.

Links....there must be something you have to back up your claims other than just a quick cut-n-paste job from DU or any number of other anti-Bush, anti-war websites.

Come on Beefy, play well with others.

 

[insein]

Links....there must be something you have to back up your claims other than just a quick cut-n-paste job from DU or any number of other anti-Bush, anti-war websites.

Come on Beefy, play well with others.

Hell i'd even accept that. At least you know where it came from. He gives nothing.

 

[sagegirl]

So because the man cant speak well he therefore is "out to lunch?" I fail to see how a man's words are judged more than his actions. I look at what Bush has DONE. He said he'd fight the terrorists on their soil. He has. He said he would eliminate regimes that sponsored terrorism. He has eliminated 2 (afghanistan and iraq) and neutralized 2 others (pakistan and libya). He has said he would help the ecnomy through tax cuts. We have the lowest unemployment rate in history and the lowest in the current world. Everything he has said he would do, he has done. So i fail to see "how" he said what he said has anything to do with his actions. If he failed to come through on what he promised, then maybe we can attack him for his eloquence.

Actions speak louder than words. Words are cheap.

The out to lunch comment was a cheap shot. His delivery of his message is less than convincing....so many times he stops mid sentence and says something like ....look, its tough, we are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people......to make the world a safer place...We get it. For you to say that he has eliminated 2 terrorist supporting regimes and neutralized 2 others is a bit of a stretch. He said he was gonna get Bin Laden......some hunting simile like, we're gonna chase him and there wont be any hole for him to hide in....Bin Laden has yet to be found. Remember too that the 9/11 terrorists all had Saudi connections, which in fact tied them more closely than to Afghanistan, and there is evidence that there is still a strong terrorist connection with the Saudis, we have not address that. We have not seen any action on North Korea, seems like a non-issue, or Iran, Pakistan, and India. Nuclear proliferation is as big a threat as terrorism and needs to be addressed. The present economy is a false indicator of whats to come. We have huge debt, federal, and personal, as well as budget deficits that increase both of these over the next ten years. We are living high on the spoils of this future debt.
Severe budget cuts have occurred in education, enviornmental, and cultural areas, we havent seen a balanced budget yet. Enough
My opinion is that Bush has a set of priorities that serve some but not most. Sure we want freedom and dignity for the Iraqi people and we want to rid the world of terrorism, but there are many people who suffer, some are starving and some are fighting, lots of it going on....but our actions in Iraq are out of balance with our involvement elsewhere. Get it? We havent achieved our goals, stated or concealed, (the Downing Street Memo) and the fighting and dying will continue until we have. It does seem inappropriate that with all this going on Bush takes time off......a vacation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The out to lunch comment was a cheap shot. His delivery of his message is less than convincing....so many times he stops mid sentence and says something like ....look, its tough, we are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people......to make the world a safer place...We get it. For you to say that he has eliminated 2 terrorist supporting regimes and neutralized 2 others is a bit of a stretch. He said he was gonna get Bin Laden......some hunting simile like, we're gonna chase him and there wont be any hole for him to hide in....Bin Laden has yet to be found. Remember too that the 9/11 terrorists all had Saudi connections, which in fact tied them more closely than to Afghanistan, and there is evidence that there is still a strong terrorist connection with the Saudis, we have not address that. We have not seen any action on North Korea, seems like a non-issue, or Iran, Pakistan, and India. Nuclear proliferation is as big a threat as terrorism and needs to be addressed. The present economy is a false indicator of whats to come. We have huge debt, federal, and personal, as well as budget deficits that increase both of these over the next ten years. We are living high on the spoils of this future debt.
Severe budget cuts have occurred in education, enviornmental, and cultural areas, we havent seen a balanced budget yet. Enough
My opinion is that Bush has a set of priorities that serve some but not most. Sure we want freedom and dignity for the Iraqi people and we want to rid the world of terrorism, but there are many people who suffer, some are starving and some are fighting, lots of it going on....but our actions in Iraq are out of balance with our involvement elsewhere. Get it? We havent achieved our goals, stated or concealed, (the Downing Street Memo) and the fighting and dying will continue until we have. It does seem inappropriate that with all this going on Bush takes time off......a vacation.

Iraq is a good base of operations for us in the mideast. And we had the cover of multiple U.N. resolutions to legitimate our actions there. There is a world culture war going on, religious tolerance v. islamic tyranny. Which side are you on? Either you're with us or against us. Can you think of another option?