Karl Rove had an editorial out that says history will judge Bush kindly. I must say that I believe it will be a lot like Truman. He unpopular because of war, some dont like war no matter what. We should see overtime that we are safer now since we have taken the fight to the terrorists.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBkZWQzNWM2ZDIwN2QyMTg4OTUzMjc1ZGFhOTc5OTM
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
I look at GW as someone that is similar to Reagan, in that he did something at the time was unpopular and as a result history acknowledged his accomplishments during his presidency and made him to be someone that people respected.
Every politician has been criticized for something or mis-deeds during their presidency, but does not mean that they are necessarily considered the worst President in history. If the tables were turned and things did not work out as expected or were along the same lines as GW took but maybe a slightly different strategy, would that person be considered one of the worst Presidents in history, too??
It all depends on how you look at the facts, from where your source of information comes from and how you interpret the information.
GB 41 will be remembered well
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Sheyl-
What did he shred in it?
How bout them dems trying to take all the soldiers funding away on memorial day? Real Patriots
gb43, along with rover will
be looked at the evil monster
who perfected character assassination
Ihope this doesn't come off as too mean
but ModernD, anywhere else on the internet
you would be conidered troll for starting
arguments --- without sense or logic --
for the mere joy of riling up others
Keep shaking them pom poms cheerleader!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
but you are right --- he is being remembered a lot better than
he should be, but look at the difference
No one was taking about impeaching raygun at the end of his tenure
(now that might be because they were concern about his Alzheimer )
now look at the rats trying to run as far away from w as they can
now --- like the slimely conservative S&L buyout, w is likely forced
to help out all his banking cronies and that is not going to be a plus
in eight years of no moral standard what so ever
Thanks for picking up the talking point on the corporation thing. Too bad its not the real point. Support for troops means giving them the money to complete their mission while supporting them to carry out their mission. I would rather be a cheerleader than hiding in the basement from all the gloom and doom
why don't you join w's kids and cheney's kids and mitt r's kids
and go and fight in the war
o yea --- conservatives only start wars
they don't fight in them
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Oh sheesh! Read something will you?? Clinton targeted Bin Laden's plant and launched a missile attack against it and all you GOP jokes started screaming "wag the Dog"! He also prevented the millenium attacks and gave everything to Bush when he took office to deal with the latest . . . which Geo. completely ignored . . . like any and all intelligence about terrorism. Naturally . . . when we got 'hit' he invaded a completely uninvolved country!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
now anyone with the inside dope (insert your own joke about w and dope)
get a million dollar contract
You make me laugh so damn hard!
GWB let the terrorists attack us on American soil. Remember 9/11?
Every time Clinton tried to go after the terrorists, the Republicans accused him of bombing aspirin factories/ baby formula factories, and said he wagged the dog, to take attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.
GWB ignored the warnings that Bin Laden was going to be his biggest problem.
Then:
The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing :
Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
Go to the link, read it and learn something!
Clinton didn't turn away the opportunity to get Bin Laden three times. The CIA did.
December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) Clinton signed and authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture bin Laden.
And I guess you never heard about Bush letting bin Laden go, when he had the intelligence reports of his location:
Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.
...
That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.
"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/10/10951/5080
Read the story in it's entirety. Learn something for a change.
GWB let Al Qai'da re-establish itself in Afghanistan, while diverting troops to Iraq.
what is a conservative talking point?
o, I don't know --- how about what rover tells us to think
and go with that.
well so far Mad Dog Public only quotes a right wing web'zine
next he will be getting his info from a right-wing (synonym for whack0)
blog
answer:
The end of their nose.
Newhound-
What i was talking about was how Clinton alloweda AL Queda to attack emabsies and the USS Cole and all he did was a "proportinal response" he didnt go after OBL with boots and he DID pass on killing him.
Or maybe the way he handled the economy such that average American's now have the privilege of holding multiple jobs to stay above the poverty line (which has seen more and more people below it every year of his presidency except one).
Gosh, there has to be one good thing???? Right?
He has not shreded the constitution or the middle class. Unemployment is down people are happing according to polls. The far left wants you to think everyone is miserable and that is not the facts. The President has followed his oath of office to protect his country something that President Clinton could not bring himself to do.
Shari-
I hope you will at least put a lot of the blame where it should be on a poor local and state response. Florida has had multiple devastating hurricanes and the President handled those situations perfectly. Why because Florida Emergency Managment is prepared. Louisana has repeatadly refused help from florida's planner to assist in planning and actualy turned them away in the middle of Katrina. Local and State planners and the ones who put the operations center at the lowest point below sea level and then were suprised when it flooded.
The ecomony is doing great shari. Unemployment at lows. Income going up. Dont see a problem a month ago the markets hit an all time high. only 600 points away now. The economy grows and slows, but we avoided a recession and will be going gangbusters again soon. It is morning in America rise and shine PATRIOTS!
*note, emphasis on your word, "ALLOWED"
Here are the rules of engagement:
1. You may not use strawmen.
2. You may not change the subject.
3. You may not use your opinion as fact.
Now go get 'em Tiger!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509081/posts
http://www.abortionessay.com/essay/files/virtueofaction/
Allowed Khobar Towers
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/051013
Allowed 9/11
http://www.acsa.net/clinton_caused_911.htm
Actually there is plenty of proof that Sadaam wanted to produce and helped Terrorists
"not letting anyone testify"
He got that one from Clinton who didnt want to allow ANYONE testify including SS
"In the new letter, Zawahiri said the Muslim masses "do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish and secondly American."
This sounds like they WANT us there to incite the Muslim masses. I posted this response on my comments section for you. Maybe you could read my article before you criticize it.
http://www.abortionessay.com/essay/files/virtueofaction/
Somebody else's opinion. Where does it prove Clinton "ALLOWED" the attacks?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/051013
Again, some one's opinion, based on after the fact and no where does it prove Clinton "ALLOWED" the attacks. Funny tho, the only way Clinton could get anything from the Saudi Prince was to go through Daddy Bush, who is in business with them.
http://www.acsa.net/clinton_caused_911.htm
excerpt: "Clinton had ordered the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. "
I give you facts and document. You give me Right wing spin and garbage.
You don't follow rules very well. You can't debate. And you can't get facts without going to radical right wingnuts.
Now, here's something for you. I will agree and do agree Clinton didn't do a very good job, and politics got in his way. I'm not debating who the better President was/is. They're both losers and have fallen short. But with all of GWB's knowledge passed from the Clinton admin. you would think he would have protected America. So what that tells us is that he let it happen on purpose!
go straight to the whacko blogs
>>> Allowed the Cole
>>>
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509081/posts
>>>
>>> http://www.abortionessay.com/essay/files/virtueofaction/
>>>
>>> Allowed Khobar Towers
>>> http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/051013
>>>
>>> Allowed 9/11
>>>
>>> http://www.acsa.net/clinton_caused_911.htm
The military is given the authorization to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who the President determines "planned, aided, committed or authorized" the attacks of September 11th or who harbored said persons or groups. Does this not allow them to employ whatever means within reason to get prisoners to confess or divulge information???
Here is a link that has some stats about wiretapping that I found to be very interesting: http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html.
History isn't as kind as it used to be to many figures. Christopher Columbus was once fondly remembered but now has gone down as a genocidal maniac who was looking for a quicker way to the East but settled for gold, slavery, and murder. Will George Bush go down in history in the way Karl Rove will write it, or will he go down in history as the guy who convinced the American people that Iraq was involved in 9/11 through strategic doubletalk? Having studied the History and Philosophy of the Mass Media, I can tell you how that phenomenon has not gone unnoticed.
History will not be kind to George W Bush, as he will not just be studied from a purely History for the sake of History perspective. He and his administration will be studied from propagandic perspectives showing how a nation can get motivated toward war and not without the Pearl Harbor comparison, and PR Perspectives of how it dealt with reacting in the face of scandal upon scandal upon scandal and they will go down PR geniuses as well as propagandic geniuses.
The Iraq war will be studied in comparison to Vietnam in the themes of public support and media coverage and what lessons were learned and what lessons weren't. Of course this war in Iraq will not escape the comparison to Desert Storm. What considerations did they have that prevented them from continuing into Iraq. How do they contrast with what happenned when Bush43 did invade? The answer: They don't.
He will go down as the guy who went after Saddam Hussein, while claiming we were attacked by Bin Laden. Perhaps it won't seem like he will be so badly judged if We, the American People get judged along with him.
Anyone who condemns the torture that our country is committing will gladly condemn any instance of torture that you provide us with. This is just one of our many services as people who don't think torture is a good way to get accurate information. It's wonderful for getting what you want to hear though. If you wanted to get an terrorist to sing the Star Spangled Banner like he loved it, or tell you that he knows firsthand that Osama Bin Laden is in Iraq, or that that dress doesn't make you look fat then torture is probably the only way to go. We will also condemn any killing or imprisonment of an innocent person, say like most of the people at Guantanimo Bay and very likely most of the people at "Black Sites" worldwide.
1) rule number one for ever more. If you don't have a response to why your man is a sleaze ball, don't evoke Clinton's name. I am sorry but it is getting pretty old when a republican does anything--- I mean anything corrupt --- and they find a whacko blog that says Clinton did it too. I don't care what Clinton did --- especially when you think it makes it okay for the corrupt wubuwoo's administration to take crime a step further, and once wubuwoo is out of office I hope no one says. "It's okay to lie in office, bush did it."
….a) since you used your last --- blame it on Clinton defense --- I assume that means you know that wubuwoo is morally corrupt as Clinton and you condone that kind of behavior....I wish I was a christian so I could tell you how long you will suffer in heck.
2) there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and there were not terrorist in Iraq. And not only were their not terrorist there, none of the 911 terrorist were from Iraq
>>>>"going to war with terrorist --- in a country where they are NOT"
>>>>Actually there is plenty of proof that Sadaam wanted to produce and helped Terrorists
>>>>"not letting anyone testify"
>>>>He got that one from Clinton who didnt want to allow ANYONE testify including SS
Should we just appease the terrorist into divulge information about their plans like Carter did with North Korea in getting them to agree to stop their nuclear weapons development?? Yeah, lots of good that did! Maybe we should try to negotiate with terrorist groups in the possibility that they will come to their common sense and realize their stupidity.
You know, there is such thing of sodium penthanol that in small doses is a truth serum that can be injected into an arm or leg and limit a person's inhibitions. There are other means of torture that inflict pain, which every person has their tolerance and when that is pushed to the limit, some people crack and end up spilling the beans in a matter of speaking.
Well, guess you hate our prison system then since there have been several innocent people who have been executed only to find out after the fact they were indeed innocent of the crime(s) they were convicted of and received the death penalty for. Geez, I suppose there are lawyers and judges, maybe even juries that found the person to be guilty, should be condemned for the killing of an innocent person right??? Is that not the same thing to some degree??
Why don't we just give in and comply with the demands of the terrorists since there is no possible way of reasoning or negotiating with them?? Most of society hates GW and feels that he needs to be impeached and the Democrats feels as if this war is a lost cause and there is no chance of winning, so we should just put our tails between our legs and retreat.
Glad people can see beyond their own views and beliefs and are able to see things from a totally different perspective. This is a different world we are living in with new and more dangerous threats and some people refuses to see the world as it is really is.
Obviously, some people don't read what has been written or you would have understood that the military has the authorization to use "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved with the September 11 attacks. But I suppose that means absolutely nothing since people would be condemned for their actions anyways.
History is a crock of crap. Look at what our high school students are learning and being taught in History class and tell me how accurate the facts are. Nobody reads anymore??? Interesting, I know several people who read various types of books about historical figures such as Ronald Reagan (actually read the book The Crusader) and Saddam Hussein, Harry Potter and even North Korea (Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il), so I must one of the few people who knows how to read or likes to read.
If so-called historians have their way, yes GW will be criticized for every mistakes or mis-deed he has committed during his presidency. GW will be the big bad wolf, whose Iraq War is being compared to Vietnam. No one will mention anything positive he did because in the end it was all lies, right??? Tell us something new instead of rehashing what the rest of society thinks.
I thought you would enjoy those sources I did not have the time to find cites last night. But, I thought you would find my google search fun. It is about as crediable as all the far left posts here on gather. Look I agree both Presidents have not done the best job in the world. One president had several attacks against americans are did not put anyone on the ground, they even attacked the world trade center. Another president responded. He did not get everything right. But he did go after them and has disrupted other attempted attacks. Neither of these Presidents we talked about will be seen as the best President. But, neither will be viewed as the worst.
"there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and there were not terrorist in Iraq. And not only were their not terrorist there, none of the 911 terrorist were from Iraq"
We know they made WMDs and used some against their own people. We know they were hiding something. We just dont know where they went. They had supported and funded terrorists organizations. None of the terrorists were from Iraq, that is true most were from Saudi Arabia and on purpose. OBL does not like Saudi Arabia and wanted to harm his native country by attempting to get us to turn on them. That was the purpose of the nationality.
Also if it is okay for anyone to lie in office it was set by Clinton who openly lied to the American Public. Bush has not done that Inteligence may have been wrong but he did not lie.
Keep clinging onto this gooey turd though, MDP. He suits you really well, I think.
"We know they made WMDs and used some against their own people."
Because we helped to supply them to him, and while he was using them, even against his own people, he was our best buddy in the world.
" We know they were hiding something."
Actually, that's not true at all. The UN inspectors believed that Clinton's 3 day bombing effort in 1998 wiped out the remaining fragments of whatever WMD programs he had leftover after the Gulf War. Additionally, when UN inspectors were invited back into Iraq in 2003, they found nothing, except a handful of missiles that flew about 7 miles farther than the UN resolutions allowed. Saddam quickly dismantled them. He was hiding nothing in 2003, and had even offered to assist in Bush's fraudulent "war on terra."
"We just dont know where they went."
That's bullshit too. They were destroyed. Between the Gulf War, UN inspections, and Clinton's 1998 bombings, there was nothing left. Powell and Rice both proclaimed in 2001 that Saddam posed no threat to anyone, and that his WMD programs had been eradicated.
"They had supported and funded terrorists organizations. "
The implication was that Saddam and al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11. This was asserted so feverishly and continuously that, to this day, a significant percentage of the public still believes it. Cheney is STILL repeating this blatant lie, YEARS after it's been discounted.
The REAL funding link to global terrorism, and in particular, al Qaeda, was and still is Saudi Arabia. Not only that, but they teach hatred for the west to their children, right there in SA. Good pals. One cannot help but wonder what our relationship with this wicked, dangerous regime would be if the Bush crime family were not so closely intertwined with the royal familes, and the bin Laden's.
"None of the terrorists were from Iraq, that is true most were from Saudi Arabia and on purpose. "
Good thing we invaded Iraq then. Nice work, neocons.
"OBL does not like Saudi Arabia and wanted to harm his native country by attempting to get us to turn on them."
Bin Laden's complaint with his native land was that they allowed a US military base to be planted in Mecca. He had even offered to go to war against Saddam in 1991, to drive him out of Kuwait, but the US would have none of that. They wanted their middle eastern military base.
Of course, immediately after 9/11, Bush gave Osama precisely what he wanted, by removing the US military presence from Saudi Arabia.
"Also if it is okay for anyone to lie in office it was set by Clinton who openly lied to the American Public."
About something that not one single person had any right whatsoever to ask, and that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the governing of the nation. Clinton's lie die not get 1,000,000 innocent people killed, and destroy our national treasury.
"Bush has not done that Inteligence may have been wrong but he did not lie."
Only a true idiot would still believe this. Read the Downing St. memos. Read Richard Clarke's book. Read Paul O'Neil's book. Read Joe Wilson's story. Read any one of virtually a dozen books from a dozen different inside sources that all say the exact same thing: Bush was determined to attack Iraq from the moment he stole office, and they did everything possible to fit the intelligence around their agenda, even when the CIA specifically TOLD them not to do so.
Try to pry your nose out of your cheerleader boyfriend's ass and open your eyes. You really make yourself look like a delusional moron when you say things like this. Yes, Bush LIED us into Iraq. Deal with it. Stop covering for this loser. It's pathetic.
Keep clinging onto this gooey turd though, MDP. He suits you really well, I think.
"We know they made WMDs and used some against their own people."
Because we helped to supply them to him, and while he was using them, even against his own people, he was our best buddy in the world.
" We know they were hiding something."
Actually, that's not true at all. The UN inspectors believed that Clinton's 3 day bombing effort in 1998 wiped out the remaining fragments of whatever WMD programs he had leftover after the Gulf War. Additionally, when UN inspectors were invited back into Iraq in 2003, they found nothing, except a handful of missiles that flew about 7 miles farther than the UN resolutions allowed. Saddam quickly dismantled them. He was hiding nothing in 2003, and had even offered to assist in Bush's fraudulent "war on terra."
"We just dont know where they went."
That's bullshit too. They were destroyed. Between the Gulf War, UN inspections, and Clinton's 1998 bombings, there was nothing left. Powell and Rice both proclaimed in 2001 that Saddam posed no threat to anyone, and that his WMD programs had been eradicated.
"They had supported and funded terrorists organizations. "
The implication was that Saddam and al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11. This was asserted so feverishly and continuously that, to this day, a significant percentage of the public still believes it. Cheney is STILL repeating this blatant lie, YEARS after it's been discounted.
The REAL funding link to global terrorism, and in particular, al Qaeda, was and still is Saudi Arabia. Not only that, but they teach hatred for the west to their children, right there in SA. Good pals. One cannot help but wonder what our relationship with this wicked, dangerous regime would be if the Bush crime family were not so closely intertwined with the royal familes, and the bin Laden's.
"None of the terrorists were from Iraq, that is true most were from Saudi Arabia and on purpose. "
Good thing we invaded Iraq then. Nice work, neocons.
"OBL does not like Saudi Arabia and wanted to harm his native country by attempting to get us to turn on them."
Bin Laden's complaint with his native land was that they allowed a US military base to be planted in Mecca. He had even offered to go to war against Saddam in 1991, to drive him out of Kuwait, but the US would have none of that. They wanted their middle eastern military base.
Of course, immediately after 9/11, Bush gave Osama precisely what he wanted, by removing the US military presence from Saudi Arabia.
"Also if it is okay for anyone to lie in office it was set by Clinton who openly lied to the American Public."
About something that not one single person had any right whatsoever to ask, and that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the governing of the nation. Clinton's lie die not get 1,000,000 innocent people killed, and destroy our national treasury.
"Bush has not done that Inteligence may have been wrong but he did not lie."
Only a true idiot would still believe this. Read the Downing St. memos. Read Richard Clarke's book. Read Paul O'Neil's book. Read Joe Wilson's story. Read any one of virtually a dozen books from a dozen different inside sources that all say the exact same thing: Bush was determined to attack Iraq from the moment he stole office, and they did everything possible to fit the intelligence around their agenda, even when the CIA specifically TOLD them not to do so.
Try to pry your nose out of your cheerleader boyfriend's ass and open your eyes. You really make yourself look like a delusional moron when you say things like this. Yes, Bush LIED us into Iraq. Deal with it. Stop covering for this loser. It's pathetic.
About something that not one single person had any right whatsoever to ask, and that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the governing of the nation.
Funny you should mention that your party loves "outing" or worrying about Republicans personal lives
Excuse me, Mr. Clueless, but it was YOUR party that chose to make "family values" and "moral fiber" a political weapon. The weapon is now thrust upon you. Suck on it, bitch.
for what it is worth, there are anti-Koolaid meds to help you kick....seriously.
"someone who doesn't want to learn in the "correct" direction."
I have found the correct direction, and it is not socialism
Clark-
"Excuse me, Mr. Clueless, but it was YOUR party that chose to make "family values" and "moral fiber" a political weapon. The weapon is now thrust upon you. Suck on it, bitch."
I just find that you can be against gay marriage, like Sen. Craig and it does not matter what your personal life is like. That is not crazy it is the same with the abortion issue. You can personally be against abortion and be pro-choice.
Call me crazy for being able to think
So, it is okay to you that Al Qaeda can use extreme measures of torture to any military soliders just because that is part of their country's customs and or a means to get their message across and have their demands met??
Should we just appease the terrorist into divulge information about their plans like Carter did with North Korea in getting them to agree to stop their nuclear weapons development?? Yeah, lots of good that did! Maybe we should try to negotiate with terrorist groups in the possibility that they will come to their common sense and realize their stupidity.
No it's not ok for Al Qaida to torture as I indicated in my reply. You were fishing for someone to say that it was but no one bit. No one even suggested appeasing anyone, but perhaps a day may come when the rest of world will refuse to appease us.
Since you are obviously not in the know, I'll break it to you: Most of the people imprisoned and tortured at Guantanimo Bay were INNOCENT, ie not terrorists or linked to terrorism. Witness the award winning reporting from NPR Program This American Life Episode: "Habeas Schmabeas".
In the transcript near the bottom of page 2:
This adds a whole new dimension to the torture does it not?
You know, there is such thing of sodium penthanol that in small doses is a truth serum that can be injected into an arm or leg and limit a person's inhibitions. There are other means of torture that inflict pain, which every person has their tolerance and when that is pushed to the limit, some people crack and end up spilling the beans in a matter of speaking.
Well the beans were spilled alright, just not the right ones. Members that were part of Al Qaida and in US custody "revealed" that they had links to Iraq under administration approved "interrogation". Turns out that ill-gotten intel was INCORRECT. Then they sang the Star-Spangled Banner like they loved it.
Well, guess you hate our prison system then since there have been several innocent people who have been executed only to find out after the fact they were indeed innocent of the crime(s) they were convicted of and received the death penalty for. Geez, I suppose there are lawyers and judges, maybe even juries that found the person to be guilty, should be condemned for the killing of an innocent person right??? Is that not the same thing to some degree??
Well they certainly do not deserve to be patted on the back. It is the same to the degree that you are comparing two kinds of injustice, but the difference is that people in the criminal justice system are given rights in the effort to make it as fair as possible. The people we have detained have been stripped of all those rights. They are held with no charge which is absolutely Unconstitutional. Remember 92% of these people are not terrorists. It would look very bad for the Bush Administration to give these men and boys fair trials.
Why don't we just give in and comply with the demands of the terrorists since there is no possible way of reasoning or negotiating with them?? Most of society hates GW and feels that he needs to be impeached and the Democrats feels as if this war is a lost cause and there is no chance of winning, so we should just put our tails between our legs and retreat.
How about we let all you people who support the war fight it and pay for it instead. I am one of many people who were able to see through the spin and propaganda that created the groupthink that made all you sheep want to invade a country that was no threat to us. Ever heard the phrase "Don't tread on me"? Well it has been done and you all are responsible. YOU pay to make Halliburton it's own nation. YOU pay to put money in the pockets of the war profiteers.
Glad people can see beyond their own views and beliefs and are able to see things from a totally different perspective. This is a different world we are living in with new and more dangerous threats and some people refuses to see the world as it is really is.
Obviously, some people don't read what has been written or you would have understood that the military has the authorization to use "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved with the September 11 attacks. But I suppose that means absolutely nothing since people would be condemned for their actions anyways.
And how many people do we have who were involved in 9/11? We had Saddam Hussein, but he wasn't involved. How is that hunt for Osama Bin Laden going. The fact is that the Bush Administration does not care if they find him or not. They just wanted at Iraq.
History is a crock of crap. Look at what our high school students are learning and being taught in History class and tell me how accurate the facts are. Nobody reads anymore??? Interesting, I know several people who read various types of books about historical figures such as Ronald Reagan (actually read the book The Crusader) and Saddam Hussein, Harry Potter and even North Korea (Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il), so I must one of the few people who knows how to read or likes to read.
If so-called historians have their way, yes GW will be criticized for every mistakes or mis-deed he has committed during his presidency. GW will be the big bad wolf, whose Iraq War is being compared to Vietnam. No one will mention anything positive he did because in the end it was all lies, right??? Tell us something new instead of rehashing what the rest of society thinks.
When I was in high school, I took college level history which I followed up when in college. History taught in college is the real history where they train you to investigate the facts and available documents (considering the source of course). If you want to get an A in college level history, you have to demonstrate investigative and critical thinking skills.
WTF? See, this is the twisted pretzel "logic" that puts you wing nuts into the category of "lunatic fringe." You stand for nothing. You have no principles, because, in your minds, whatever will win elections is all that matters.
Say that you're anti-abortion, but help your daughter get an abortion on the sly.
Say that your anti-gay, but sneak into a public restroom for gay blow jobs.
Say that you're against lying under oath and obstruction of justice, and then support that very behavior.
Say that you're "Christian" and then launch an illegal, unnecessary war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent, men, women, and children.
Say that you're "pro life," and then demand capital punishment.
Say that you're for small government, and then over bloat spending by 25%.
Say that you want government out of business, and then use government to hand big business hundreds of billions of public dollars.
I could go on and on and on and on and on. The right wing is simply an edification of rot and decay, from top to bottom. This is an ideology that has no moral compass, no ethical barriers, no guiding principles, and no values whatsoever, except to enrich themselves. It is a disease that is killing this nation.
"call me crazy for being able to think"
"think" Yeah, that's it.
This is your problem. You label everyone who does not agree as a lunatic. My logic is fine. It is the same thing. I am not talking about winning elections I am talking reality.
You didnt even look at what I was saying you just went into bashing the President.
How is being personally against abortion but politically pro-choice any different from being bi-sexual and not wanting gay marriage.
Not every gay or bi-sexual person is in favor of gay marriage. That does not make them in your words "anti-gay"
There's nothing wrong with my logic.
We know they were hiding something. We just dont know where they went.
Then how the hell does this We" know "they" were hiding "something", Mr. Logical?
And who the hell is this "We", Mr. Bush himself publicly stated there were no WMD in Iraq, nearly two years ago, Mr. Logical.