Why the whole world detest Bush?

[Red Paul]

So, no matter what goes on with America's soldiers in the Mideast, we must make sure the people of Crawford don't have a traffic problem downtown. Okay, we all have different priorities.

But put yourself in Ms. Sheehan's position. The president isn't in the White House, he's in Crawford. And America's "anti-war senators or congressmen" have done a poor job of being anti-war, given that just about every leading Democrat supports staying in Iraq and Ms. Sheehan desperately wants us to leave. Seeking their guidance and counsel would therefore be low on her to-do list.

What's left? Well, sit in the miserable heat down in Texas and make a point, despite the untold consequences for availability of diner stools in the nearby town.

 

[HonestAbe]

So true.

If Ms. Sheehan did it quietly, Americans would go on ignoring the atrocities of this war and the corruption of the Bush administration, just as most of us have for the past couple of years.

The fact is, the Iraq war has been way too convenient and comfortable for too many Americans.

Many Americans who are against the war are like Ostriches. It scares them but all they can bring themselves to do is stick their head in the sand and hope it goes away. Massive continous Protest is one of the best ways to make our leaders sweat and listen to the will of the people they are supposed to represent. Some of them might be waiting for such a movement to start the onslaught that it will take against this administration to bring the troops back home, but if they don't see us in the streets they have no reason to stand against Bushs' smear machine alone. The Bush team has used propaganda very effectively to marginalize war opponents thus far in part because there have been only a small number of people willing to take a stand. Senators and Congressmen/women want to know that the people will stand behind them if they attempt to bring the Bush crime family to account for their atrocities.

 

[Red Paul]

Oh well, i guess neither one of us will change his point of view. I do hope, however, that everything will work out for the best for her.

Fair enough. If we can agree on that fucking war (excuse the language), then that's the main thing.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You are incorrect in your statement about the link between 9/11 and Iraq. Totally incorrect.

Later on I will post an extended quote on this very issue, from Thomas Friedman who was interviewed in this month's Playboy. He had the best analysis of the Iraq War I have ever read by anyone, and I have read a lot about it. I'll post it tonight after I get back from working out at the gym.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Hey Curious,

Wait until I post the Friedman comments later on. They are on target (AS FAR AS ANALYSIS- NOT OPINION) and some of what you say above is completely inaccurate as far as Friedman's opinions. I will post what he says which will speak for itself without any spin being put on it by someone who has not read the interview.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Friedman Analysis

As previously noted above, I recently came across this month's Playboy Interview with Thomas Friedman which contained what I felt was the best analysis of the Iraq War that I have read: insightful, pithy, analytical and intelligent, unlike much of the knee-jerk commentary in this thread.

By way of introduction and disclaimer, Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times. His twice weekly column (which I actually have never read) is syndicated in more than 700 newspapers worldwide, making him arguably America's most influential columnist, if not the world's. He has also written a series of best selling books about the Middle East. Prior to reading this Playboy Interview, I was aware of Friedman, but not really familiar with his politics (which I understand to be mostly liberal), or his writings. As I read this interview - in which he harshly criticizes Bush's handling of the war, the justifications for the war, the failure to fire Rumsfeld, etc. - I realized that this man is someone who is highly intelligent and thinks like I do. He just tells the truth, and I think that after reading so much bullshit in this thread, the truth now needs to be told. You guys should all read this and then buy his books. I was motivated to post this mainly by Femaleluver's comment that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq which I never believed to be true.

Here is what Friedman said in the Playboy Interview (and which I completely agree with):

"For me the war was never about weapons of mass destruction. I never believed that argument. Even if there were WMDs, the amount was piddling and easily deterrable. For me the reason to go to war was not WMDs but PMDs - people of mass destruction. The boys of 9/11 were produced by a political climate in the Arab world that was deeply toxic. For 50 years we treated the Arab world as if it were a collection of gas stations. All we cared about were three things: that they kept the pumps open and the prices low and were nice to the Jews. Basically we said, "Other than that you can do whatever you want out back." They could treat their women however they wanted, educate their children in whatever intolerance they liked and describe us as the force of evil. They could be as corrupt as they wanted. On 9/11 we were hit with the distilled essence of everything going on out back. I wasn't going to play that game anymore. George Bush wasn't either, and he made the right decision. If we didn't find a way to begin to change the context of the Arab world, we were inviting another 9/11.

"There were four reasons for the war: the right reason, the stated reason, the moral reason and the real reason. The stated reason was WMDs. It was an excuse the President used. The moral reason was the genocidal regime responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. The right reason was regime change, to try to build a democractic context in the heart of the Arab world. But the real reason was to send the following message: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Arab world, we mean you no ill, but we noticed something on 9/11. Many Arabs and Muslims applauded it. So listen when I tell you the following: You are now going to see American boys and girls go from Basra to Baghdad. Which part of this don't you understand? We will not sit here idly while you come over to our country, kill 3,000 of our brothers and sisters and then bake a cake-which some people in Saudi Arabia did-to celebrate. Try it again and we are going to come into the heart of your world and there will be vast and unpredictable consequences."

 

[eastender]

Bravo President Bush

I endorse the position taken by Thomas Friedman as presented and supported by EB.I would like to expand upon their views by reminding one and all he has accomplished his prime objective - protecting the United States and the American people(by default Canada/Canadiens and Mexico/Mexicans) by exporting the venue for terrorist activities from the North American theatre to Iraq and Afghanistan,many time zones away,something that other world leaders have failed to do(Putin/Chechnya) etc.

Granted there has been a cost - lives of honourable Americans,exponentialy increased military spending,negative world and local opinion but the total cost is significantly less than the cost of terrorist activity in North America and the results - loss of innocent lives,exponentially increased military spending,the impact to the the North American economy - down time dollars,etc,and the cost of re-construction

Simply,President Bush acted like a "good father".Based on information,he concluded that the big fight could not be avoided and by whatever means possible he had to move it as far awayfrom home as possible.If he diverted the issue to "weapons of mass destruction" so be it.Critics ridicule his intellect but the critics could not figure it out.Do not expect President Bush to come out and tell or admit anything.

Canada could use such a leader.

 

[dallasman]

I endorse the position taken by Thomas Friedman as presented and supported by EB.I would like to expand upon their views by reminding one and all he has accomplished his prime objective - protecting the United States and the American people(by default Canada/Canadiens and Mexico/Mexicans) by exporting the venue for terrorist activities from the North American theatre to Iraq and Afghanistan,many time zones away,something that other world leaders have failed to do(Putin/Chechnya) etc.

Granted there has been a cost - lives of honourable Americans,exponentialy increased military spending,negative world and local opinion but the total cost is significantly less than the cost of terrorist activity in North America and the results - loss of innocent lives,exponentially increased military spending,the impact to the the North American economy - down time dollars,etc,and the cost of re-construction

Simply,President Bush acted like a "good father".Based on information,he concluded that the big fight could not be avoided and by whatever means possible he had to move it as far awayfrom home as possible.If he diverted the issue to "weapons of mass destruction" so be it.Critics ridicule his intellect but the critics could not figure it out.Do not expect President Bush to come out and tell or admit anything.

Canada could use such a leader.

Do you fill up with gasoline or do you just fart to make your car move?

 

[EagerBeaver]

The presence of U.S. troops is not causing the arab world to fear us, just to hate us more than the might have before.

I don't accept this argument. Before there was lots of hate. Now there is lots of hate, tempered with some fear. The latter is better than the former.

In the interview Friedman goes on to say we will only prevail in the Arab world if we begin to change the context through democracy, which we have started in Iraq. He goes on to cite the Indian model - lots of muslims but no al Qaeda. Why? Because the poor muslim in India now has a chance to be a rich guy. Friedman is so right. They key is the exporting of democracy and the shutting down of what Friedman identifies as "what is going on out back."

 

[Sadie]

You call yourself a 'Reblican' and you can't even spell 'Republican'? This is why people don't like Bush supporters!!! It doesn't mean you are stupid if you can't communicate (not 'cumminicate') to the press if you are a president, it means you don't know what to say!!! If you had 50 people writing your speach cards and thinking up answers for you to say to press, what would you call yourself if you didn't know what to say?

Yeah, he's 'protecting' the US from terrorists, by killing innocent people in a far away country. That is very noble of him.

Sadie.

I am an American, Reblican and I will vote for Bush again.
I agree that on t.v. when he is talking to press, he does not cumminicate as well as Clinton. That does not mean he is stupid or a moron. I think he is doing a great job of protecting US from terrorists. What did Clinton do about that??? Too busy to fool around with Fat Monica.

Trust me Kerry will not get elected. How many times he changed his mind about the war???

 

[500miles]

eastender's post

I didn't know that people can still argue, with a straight face, that the "venue of terrorism" can be exported. I guess those two planes that hit the World Trade center didn't really fly through NYC, and I suppose that those trains in Madrid really didn't get bombed. It was just a hoax. The subway trains and the bus that got blown up in London? Purely special effects. It's called terrorism instead of war because there is no front line. To continue to argue that Bush is protecting us by exporting the venue of terrorism is ostrich logic at its worst -- hiding one's head underneath the sand to pretend that the problem has gone away.

Just stop the BS. Iraq has the oil we want, and let's just call this what it is instead of trying to wrap it in a nice little package of red, white, and blue. War is just armed robbery writ large. It's not the fact that we went to war that makes people hate us. It's the hypocrisy. The Europeans thought that imperialism went out of fashion 50 years ago. They just never figured that we Americans would drag it out of the closet and parade the streets with it. If we're going to wear out-of-fashion clothe, might as well admit that we have a unique sense of fashion.

Please don't call Bush "father". My father can pronounce nuclear.

 

[500miles]

Eastender 2

Oh, yeah, given the Bush's affinity for attacking anything that he finds lacking in moral probity, his first directive, if he were to annex Canada, would be to lock up all your whore-mongering asses up at Guantanamo Bay. Enjoy that one, Eastender.

 

[HonestAbe]

Ouch!!

whore-mongering

I prefer "hobbyist" thank you.

Other than that I agree with you. Its absolutely amazing that anyone can say with a straight face that the US had a moral argument for invading Iraq. The USA has no moral high ground to do anything to anybody. Some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man, Hiroshima and Nagasaki being just two of the most disgusting, have been acts of the USA. For those of us who have forgotten just a reminder, the USA helped create Saddam Hussein. The USA gave Saddam the poison gas he used against the Kurds(the genocide referred too), later on Rumsfeld met with him along with various other Goverment officials and SHOOK HIS HAND!!!!!!

We supported him WHOLEHEARTEDLY for years and helped him build his regime full well knowing what he was doing. We never had a problem with it until he decided he was going to invade a neighboring country which was undermining his oil profits. But Kuwait borders Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family got on the "Bush Phone" and yelled help. So we fired a warning shot but Saddam being a madman of our creation called our bluff so we promptly stuck our collective boot up his ass. Then Saddam tried to have Bush senior killed which started a blood feud that a Texan wasn't about to lose. The rest is what you have been watching for the past three years, being lied to every step of the way.

The media in this country has done a horrendous job of putting out the facts about the history of the Middle East and what the reasons are for the Anti American sentiment that is so pervasive there. It is rare to find an American who understands the USA's complicity in events all over the world for the better part of this century which have been ill conceived, short sighted, and ultimately created the problems we face today. 9/11 was an inevitable wake up call, a rude murderous welcome to the war which has raged in the Middle East ever since the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland.

People over there have been living in fear for their entire lives, we are just getting a taste of what is to come. As long as poverty and injustice, the roots of terrorism, are not addressed, it will thrive and grow. Our foreign policy doesn't kill the root it tries to snip off the leaves one by one. This has not worked in the past and it is not working now. Denial is not a river in Egypt(I apologize for that blatant attempt at metaphorical humour). For those of you who like to read, try Chomskys' "9/11 interviews with Noam Chomsky." Then you'll have some real insight as to the machinations of our government in regards to the matter at hand.

 

[HonestAbe]

This is the brainwashing effect of US propaganda that apparently even effects "intellectuals." Rather than looking for the truth too many people in the US let their emotions over 9/11 get in the way of their better judgment and allow themselves to be spoon fed lies and misinformation by the Bush administration. I believe this is because they want to believe what Bush says is true so they can justify in their minds the killing and maiming of innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11, and American soldiers who have no choice but to do what they are told. Namely to kill and maybe be killed for a cause many of them do not believe in. I can not imagine the nightmare of knowing I killed innocent people because I followed orders. This will be a huge problem for the VA when the boys finally come home just as it was for the Vietnam Vets.: :

 

[eastender]

Really!!!

In response to a group of posts by HonaestAbe,Femaleluver,500miles.In no particular order.

London/Madrid though great tragedies did not happen in the USA or North America.President Bush cannot be held responsible for the fact that other world leaders did not act in a pro-active fashion to protect their citizens.
Thank you for making my point.

Conversely what do you suggest he do?Say, boy those poor Muslim fellas are
having a hard time finding decent flight schools in their neck of the woods -
maybe we can help by building such facilities in Iraq?

Hiroshima/Nagasaki - you forgot Pearl Harbor.The Japanese would have attacked Los Angeles or San Francisco if they had the capabilities.They did not.What should Truman have done - offered them the capabilities once the USA had them?

Muslims have been killing innocent Muslims centuries before the USA and
North America likewise other cultures have been killing innocent members of their culture since the dawn of history.How come this concept of killing innocent people did not evolve from all these other cultures nor does it seem to extend to them?The concept of "following orders" was invoked by the Germans at Nurenberg and was debunked by the Americans/allies.

In 1970 Canada - after the Cross kidnapping and the murder of Pierre Laporte
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau instituted the War Measure's Act so what is the relevence of Gitmo?

 

[EagerBeaver]

I have to agree with Eastender. Honest Abe, the comment about Nagasaki and Hiroshima that you made lacks any historical context. Before Hiroshima and Nagaski, Japan was requested to surrender by the USA. Despite mounting military losses to the USA, THEY REFUSED TO DO SO. The alternative to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an invasion of Japan that would have cost millions of lives, both Japanese and American. It should also be noted that the Japanese were continuing suicide attacks with their aircraft at this time and their troops were not surrendering.

Japan started World War II, as far as the USA's involvement is concerned, by attacking Pearl Harbor. That attack was similar in many respects to 9/11 insofar as what it did to public opinion in this country, as reflected in the Friedman comments. Although it is not clear whether Japan could have mustered another attack on American soil towards the end of the war, would it have been prudent for Truman to simply wait for that to happen?

I agree with CS Martin. There is so much media regurgitation and knee jerk reaction that is devoid of any real analysis in this thread. I am surprised that many of the posters do not have torn ACLs from all the knee jerking. My impression of many of the posters here is that they read and believe whatever media drivel they read, and have not educated themselves about history or historical context regarding what they say.

Friedman has recognized two important things: (1) That past US policy in the Middle East was a failure which brought about the conditions that led to 9/11; and (2) The only way to rectify that failure is by forcing change through a democratic model, with the country of India being the shining example of how a muslim country (or I should say a country with a large muslim population) can offer prosperity to those in poverty and not create the conditions that lead to the growth of Al Qaeda.

Someone mentioned that poverty and injustice led to 9/11. That is half of the analysis. Poverty and injustice and THE INABILITY TO RISE ABOVE IT is what led to 9/11. Friedman has proposed that we use the Indian model to bring about in the Arab world the change that has been wrought in India. Simply put: if you have poverty and injustice but you also have a democratic, non-corrupt system of government in which the citizens have a chance to rise above the poverty and injustice (as in India), then you do not become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.

Now what part of this do you guys not understand?

 

[HonestAbe]

Excuse me?

Finally someone who thinks for himself instead of regurgitating media junk.

Glad to see that you know us all so well that you feel comfortable ASSuming that we don't think for ourselves. Mighty presumptious of you and frankly quite insulting as well. Its funny because if your assumption were true we would be reciting "media junk" in FAVOR of the war which is what the mainstream media has been from day 1. There is certainly plenty of junk out there in the media but very little of it supports the anti-war position myself and many others have taken let alone withdrawal from Iraq or holding Bush accountable for all the lies he told to get the war started in the first place.

Fact is that we actually have to search for alternative news sources and the truth about historical events minus the ethnocentric bias frequently put on them. This is not easy since there is a very deliberate effort in the mainstream media and goverment to silence voices of dissent through marginalization and smear campaigns. I put it to all of you that to believe one party line without question is as Unpatriotic a thing to do as is imaginable. All Americans owe it to themselves and their country to check facts for themselves, double check them, and do it AGAIN, before ever putting our Armed Forces in the line of Fire. You would demand nothing less if you had children who were being shipped off to fight in this war. This was NOT done as is evident by all the lies we were spoon fed that so many of us accepted willingly as truth simply because many Americans wanted to believe that George Bush wouldn't lie to us about something so important.

I guess it depends on what you read/listen too/watch as to what you consider "junk." Perhaps we read different things but it might be the case that I would see what YOU read as being the "Junk." I personally don't limit my exposure to different sources for news as Big Brother Bush would like you too. I take in many different accounts from many different sources, analyze them and try to find truth among them. I have a college degree and lived for many years in several Foreign countries all over the globe. I have been immersed in day to day life within other cultures and come to learn what they value, their differences with us and how to reconcile those differences while showing the utmost repsect to the people who welcomed me into their country and were good hosts to myself and my family. I think my ability to think analytically for myself especially in regard to the subject of foreign relations is not in question thank you very much.

Keep in mind that the mainstream media in our country is controlled by corporations that are right now attempting to buy out all their smaller competition and leave only a few Mega-corporations which control almost all of the news we see/hear every day. In addition corporate media already works very closely with the government and big business in what it talks about and how it portrays the subject matter. Their hope is that they can limit the message getting out to us and influence the way we see it to their liking so they can do what they wish. This should not be a surprise to anyone as goverment/big business of any kind usually has corruption within it, Democracy/capitalism is no exception as shown right here in the good ol' US of A. So the theory that forcing Democracy on Iraq will fix their problems is another far reaching assumption which has not proved itself to be true thus far and does not look promising at all.

Getting to the Atom Bomb argument, EB, would you agree or not that dropping atomic bombs on two different cities anywhere in the world killing over 140,000 CIVILIANS, WOMEN and CHILDREN, some in a slow, agonizing, gruesome way is an atrocity? Put the shoe on the other foot, say the USA was defeated militarily(yes its unlikey but just for the sake of argument) by another country who we attacked under Bushes preemptive strike doctrine and we refused to surrender, would it be an atrocity if they used an atomic weapon on the USA? What about YOUR home town, how about YOUR family and friends? The fact that the Japanese were not surrendering was no justification to do it to them and as if once was not enough, we did it TWICE!

An invasion of Japan was not necessarily the only way to bring about the demise of the Emperors madness. Japan is an island nation which has very little of its own natural resources so they must import their oil and raw materials they use for their industries. We could have easily bombarded their military(ability to fight) into nothingness and left them a blockaded island with no ability to do anything other than to grow food so they wouldn't starve. When faced with such a plight Hirohito may have surrendered after all, albeit later than we may have wished. Fact is that we'll never know as Truman took that possibility off the table.

As to the fact that the Japanese did indeed attack Pearl Harbor starting our involvement in WWII, keep in mind that it was not a civilian target (even though some civilians died). The notion that they would have attacked the US mainland if they could have is a moot point. They didn't and they never got the chance to. We fought them in a conventional war and forced their retreat all the way back to Japan. Utterly defeated and unable to extend any kind of military reach beyond their coastline, it is extremely unlikely that they could have used an Atomic device of their own on the American mainland even if they had one, which they did not. Would they have if they could? Probably, since they were led by a madman and so would Hitler, does that justify us doing it? Hardly. As a matter of fact it left some people wondering who the most dangerous madmen were. I'll say it again, we are the only nation to ever use nuclear warfare and we did it against CIVILIANS, WOMEN and CHILDREN. NOT a proud moment in our history.

I also agree that this is an apple and oranges thing as the Iraq situation is entirely different than WWII so perhaps we should not try to compare the two but rather stick to the current situation. I only brought it up to prove the point that the US is not a moral authority on anything. We have way to many skeletons in our closet to claim righteousness over other cultures. Too many examples to list and very frustrating conversation to say the least. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree over this.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Abe,

A naval blockade would have taken many years and costed many more lives than those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman never would have been forgiven by the American public if there was ANY kind of attack on US soil in the interim when the war could have been ended quickly with A Bombs. I strongly disapprove of the revisionist history games which have been played not only by you but many other posters in this thread.

I am not condoning the use of the A Bomb but Truman felt he had no choice given the other options and the time, expense, and risk both in lives and national security of the USA. It was one of the most difficult decisions any man has ever had to make in world history and I am sure he took this difficulty with him to his grave.

The only real positive from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the dropping of those bombs showed the entire world how horrible these weapons were. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times in history nuclear weapons were ever used on a civilian population, and since that time we have had many international laws and treaties curbing the manufacture and use of nuclear weaponry because of the horrifying and shocking display of carnage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As a matter of interest Abe, I met and spoke with a Hiroshima survivor who worked at a Japenese restaurant in Connecticut I frequent (she is now retired for several years). She is now close to 70 years old. At the time of the Hiroshima A bomb she was an 8 year old schoolgirl playing at recess about 3 miles from ground zero. She told me when the bomb hit "she saw dirt flying everywhere." Fortunately she did not have any scarring but the radiation did leave her with a chronic thyroid problem. I asked her if she harbored any bitterness towards the USA and she told me she understood that it was war and that both sides did what they had to do. I believe she is a US citizen now.

 

[HonestAbe]

One can only Speculate on this EB

Abe,

A naval blockade would have taken many years and costed many more lives than those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman never would have been forgiven by the American public if there was ANY kind of attack on US soil in the interim when the war could have been ended quickly with A Bombs. I stronly disapprove of the revisionist history games which have been played not only by you but many other posters in this thread.

EB,

I'm glad to hear you don't condone nuclear warfare against civilians. I'm sure it was a difficult decision for Truman as well and its been said that he indicated privately before his death that he regretted that decision although it was never confirmed. Justly so as anyone who has been to the memorials in Japan can see the absolute horror that occurred.

As a matter of interest EB, I lived in Japan for a number of years and had dual citizenship in Japan/US until the US made me choose because of a job I wanted to take with the goverment as a young man. I had many Japanese friends(still have a few) and it is amazing that the majority of them hold no grudge against us personally over what happened in WWII. They understand that Hirohito was the reason they got involved and that their forces did reprehensible things. That being said, many Japanese don't believe it was necessary to drop two Atom Bombs on civilians but understand that if they wouldn't have attacked us in the first place it wouldn't have happened.

As for the naval blockade theory we can ONLY speculate as to how long it would have taken to accomplish its goal. It is a real stretch to assume that it would have cost many more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki as that number was, once again, 140,000 dead not to mention the wounded/sick. I would agree with that speculation in regards to an INVASION of Japan, NOT a Naval blockade accompanied by daily bombardment of all military facilities and factories which were capable of producing material for Japans' defense.

Japans military had virtually no reach by the end of the war as they were scuttling their once mighty Navy and taking the anti aircraft batteries ashore for a prepared defense of their country. Their air force was devastated and would have been wiped out altogether under constant attack by US forces growing in strength and technological capability unfettered by constant destruction of their building facilities. As I mentioned before, their supplies would have run out in short order as they could not have gotten much past a naval blockade of their island nation. Soon they wouldn't have had the fuel to run their military machinery or the raw materials to build more. What remained of their infrastucture could have been bombed into oblivion with far fewer civilian casualties.

Revisionist history this is not. No one is saying that anything that happened didn't happen or anything that didn't happen did. Its the exchanging of ideas over what other possibilities were available rather than the use of Atomic weapons on civilians, which you do not condone. As for the American public never forgiving Truman in the extremely unlikey event of Japan actually being able to mount any kind of attack (based on the factual evidence that their military ability had been crushed) against the US mainland your probably right, but over time wounds would heal just as they have in Japan.

I know many Americans would be happier today knowing that we hadn't committed such an atrocity and only attacked military targets. The purposeful killling of civilians is a war crime/violation of international law whether the US agrees with it or not. Of course we agree with it when trying to justify our invasion of Iraq but when it comes to us we want to believe that our shit doesn't stink. The rest of the world has gotten a strong whiff of it however and it doesn't smell like roses.

Respectfully, Abe

 

[500miles]

Eastender, I don't believe I made your point for you. If I were to extend your argument, then by drawing a 3-foot circle around myself, I can declare that terrorism is not only dead, but it has never happened and will, in all likelihood, never happen. Bush's declared intent of invading Iraq were (1) to find WMD, (2) to remove a brutal dictator, and (3) to eliminate a terrorist breeding ground and eliminate future acts of terrorism. Well, one out of three isn't so bad. If only I can be judged by his standard of achievment at work, I'd be a billionaire.

BTW, if anyone were regurgitating tired Fox News sound bites, it was Eastender. That whole bit about taking the fight to the enemy before they can take it to us has been the party line for the past 2 years.

Also, if you really admire Bush so much, why don't you come live in the U.S.? Your kids can learn that creationism is an alternative to evolution. You can have the FBI bust your favorite hobbying web site. Oh, yeah, and you can applaud how wisely the departing attorney general is by making his last act in office an investigation against the pornography industry.