Anti-Bush Bitches

I did give plenty of ideas, too bad you missed them.

Besides, what kind of a strategy is this? Have we learned nothing from Israel and Russia and there endless fight? The US gotta set higher standards for itself and find a creative solution to the problem but you can't expect that from an administration who likes endless wars.

Also I really don't see how you connect Iraq with Al-Qaeda.

get used to it buddy - it is going be an endless fight - reality sucks don't it?

New York, Madrid, wherever u live is next. When the bombs go off and the debris starts flying and the head of your sister is flying past you come back to GFY and explain to us how there was a better way.

Now a reply to the Bush fans:

Did anyone protest us going into Afghanistan after 9/11? No, at least not many people. Why? Because it was obvious we had a job to do. We had to dismantle terrorist organizations and most importantly get Osama bin Laden.

When did Bush's critics come out of the woodwork? When he seemed to drop all of that and go after Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. In fact Al Qaeda hated saddam's secular regime. After all the money spent we got saddam. Hooray! Too bad Al Qaeda's been growing that whole time.

I think I speak for all the lefties when I saw go fight the war on terror. Don't fight other wars in the name of the war on terror. Got sidetracked once and now Al Qaeda's shown they're active again. Whoops!

Thank you.

There are worse threats on the homeland than some towel heads with razor blades.

That 9/11 shit was lame, and they still haven't even explained how they pulled it off.

Its just a coincidence that the bush family has done biz with the bin ladens, right?

Just like it was a coincidence that the bush family had dinner with the brother of the guy who made the assasination attempt on Reagan the week before, right?

dirty fucking politics

well then Mutt, maybe it would be a good idea to actually go after the people who committed the act of terrorism instead of attacking unaffiliated countries to appease that sector of the US populace who can't seem to understand that IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AL-QUEDA and Bin Laden is still out there.

if your next door neighbor shoots your dog you don't kill the guy across the fucking street. Why is this such a complicated concept for you right-wingers?

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

in addition:

WE SHOULD INVADE TEXAS FOR GIVING US BUSH THEY VOTED HIS ASS INTO GOVERNOR AND STARTED THIS WHOLE PROCESS!

Once people realize that RADICAL ISLAM is the enemy and does not have borders... People might begin to seen a solution.

George Bush is the Christian Bin Laden.

Oh, unfortunately I'm already used to it. Yeah, incompetent leaders suck. Stick to the objective, concentrate on it and find the best way to get rid of it and don't get distracted.

I experienced all this already and most people reacted the same way you are. Yep, incompetent leaders and a majority of people blinded by hate turned the situation into an endless fight.

Why do you think 911 happened? Religious extremists where slowly and surely dying in the ME but in one single act, Ben Laden turned the tables.

They lie.

My main criticism is the way Bush is fighting terrorism.

Why is he spending 10s of trillions of dollars on WMD to bomb deserts?

Why is there such a charade over the value of all your expensive "security" at, for example, airports. The highjackers used box cutters, for christ's sake.

Spend the money on intelligence. Get the CIA in the trenches. Far cheaper and it has a much better chance of working.

oh my.... how about missing the point..!? Bush actually loves people like you.. THose who cant see deeper than the surface... The issue seems too complex for you... a hint.. it as NOTHING to do with going after the bad guys... but how you do it!! Trying to get the popluation's support with LIES, manipulating the population with emotional crap like blind patriotism (dont critism the governement during war LOL), breaking international rules (rules are good for other countries bu not the US??), going against UN, weapon inspectors, agaisnt pratically every countries' opinion on the matter... Do you even get what are the consequences of all this!???? Probably not....

Complete and utter horse shit.

What color is the sky in 'your' world?

I'll respond to you when you'll be able to articulate your opinion about what I wrote...

He is not fighting it....

He is feeding it...


Quite a difference.

Hey Mutt this song is for you bud

You're too brainwashed to see the difference between what people hate about Bush and what he calls the war on terror. Guess what that makes you....



Now go vote republican because they give you the illusion they're protecting you, we're all impressed at how not a bitch you are.

What has Bush done in Pakistan again? Pakistan has more Islamic extemists than Iraq, a LOT more, and yet Bush has tea and crumpets with the President of Pakistan while he orders the US Military to invade Iraq, where he has yet to capture a single Al Qaeda operative.

The bottom line is Bush can't keep his eye on the ball. He just isn't smart enough to end the threat of Islamic terrorism. What is needed at this time in American history is a President who:
a) is articulate at communicating complex ideas in the english language.
b) has military service, ideally a war hero.
c) is smart.
d) can create non-government jobs.
and e) is willing to do whatever it takes to make America safe, rather than whatever it takes to avoid personally appearing weak.

Kerry: 5
Bush: 0

My personal theory is that Bush must have a three-inch dick. It's the only way to explain his personality.

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Executive...-Abstract.html

"His major personality-based limitations pertaining to presidential performance include a propensity to display a superficial grasp of complex issues, to be easily bored by routine, to act impulsively, and to favor personal connections, friendship, and loyalty over competence in his staffing decisions and appointments ? all of which could render a Bush administration relatively vulnerable to errors of judgment or ethical misconduct."

I am not a fan of bush personally, but it's mostly because of the economy. He has put us in a large deficit and then is talking about making tax cuts for the upper class. Tell me how this is supposed to work out . I understand the logic behind it is easing up on taxes so they can use the money they save on "opening businesses" but what percentage of them actually will open a business. My guess is very few.

As far as the war, I guess I agree with it, however I wish it would have been handled better. No hiding behind "weapons of mass destruction" when UN inspectors had been telling him that there was none, but he went in anyways like he didn't know, and then whoops! How could have the CIA blundered the intelligence like this? I will can tell you how: they didn't.

Besides thoes two points I really don't have a problem with Bush. I would like to see what Kerry has to say about the war, hopefully he can wrap things up a bit quicker. Also I hope he has better plan for the economy then Bush. At this point in the election, my vote goes for Kerry.

1) Don't invade Iraq.
2) Do invade Saudi Arabia.
3) Catch Osama Bin Laden before Saddam Hussien.
4) Don't cut spending to firefighters and first responders.
5) Don't cut spending for soldier's benefits and health care.
6) Do cut spending on crazy Reagan space missile defense program.
7) Don't let Halliburton turn Iraq into a half trillion dollar scam.
8) Actually spend money protecting people at home rather than on a 50 billion dollar PR firm called the department of homeland security.
9) Go after real brutal rouge dictatorships like Equatorial Guinea.
10) Don't overthrow a democratically elected leader who's just trying to develop his country and raise labour rates in the region (Haiti)
11) Don't try to do the same thing in Venezuela again, like he failed at in 2002. (Wait a month for this one).
12) Don't lie every time you go on TV.
13) If you're going to attack someone, tell us the real reasons before going in, don't use scare tactics and propaganda not seen since Nazi Germany.
14) How about this one, STOP SUPPORTING ISREAL WHILE THEY'RE BUILDING THE WALL.

That's just foreign policy and defense, the amount of asinine policies this religious nut has overall, it would take me all day to simply explain to you why they're wrong. Open your eyes and do it for yourself.

Sorry, but if you can't see how Bush is leading us down completely the wrong road, you have serious problems. Turn the TV off for a month and tell me if you still think the same way.

All the terrorists on the planes for 9/11 Arabs, we know for a fact Saudi Arabia funds terrorism but we go invade Iraq because Daddy isnt in business with the Iraqi's. Here is something to make you think: This is from time.com

Bush and 9/11: What We Need to Know
The investigative panel is getting ready to grill the President. Here's what they should ask
By JOE KLEIN

Saturday, Mar. 13, 2004
George W. Bush's most memorable day as President was Sept. 14, 2001, when he stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center, holding a bullhorn in one hand, his other arm slung over the shoulder of a veteran fire fighter from central casting. Bush was pitch perfect that day?the common-man President, engaged and resolute. This is the image the Bush campaign is probably saving for the last, emotional moments of the election next fall. It is the memory the Republicans want you to carry into the voting booth. It is why the Republican Convention will be held in New York City this year. And it may also be why the White House has been so reluctant to cooperate with the independent commission investigating the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

The commission, which will finish its work in midsummer, on the eve of the conventions, will soon question the President about his response to the terrorist threat in the months before 9/11. I asked a dozen people last week?some intimate with the commission's thinking, some members of the intelligence community, some members of Congress who have investigated 9/11?what they would ask the President if they could. Their questions fell into three broad categories.

Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001.

Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was. What were President Bush's priorities? Was he aware of the Berger briefing? Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport?which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? Did he have any al-Qaeda strategy at all? Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4. A related question along the same lines: Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? The technology, which might have provided the clearest shot at Osama bin Laden before 9/11, was available early in 2001. But the CIA and the Pentagon squabbled about which agency would be in charge of pulling the trigger. The dispute wasn't resolved until after 9/11. Were you aware of this dispute, Mr. President? Why weren't you able to resolve it?

Indeed, the second category of questions revolves around the President's interest in and awareness of the al-Qaeda threat. As late as Sept. 10, after the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, Bush was asking in his national-security briefing about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban for the head of bin Laden. "If he had studied the problem at all," an intelligence expert told me, "he would have known that was preposterous." As early as Aug. 6, Bush had been told that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the U.S., perhaps using airplanes. What was his response to that? How closely was he following the intelligence reports about al-Qaeda activity, which had taken an extremely urgent tone by late spring? Another intelligence expert proposed this question: "Did he ever ask about the quality of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI?"

Obviously, the President couldn't be responsible for knowing that the FBI was tracking suspicious flight training in Arizona or that the CIA had an informant close to two of the hijackers, but was he aware of the friction between the two agencies? Was he aware that John Ashhahahahaha had opposed increasing counterterrorism funding for the FBI?

Finally, there are the questions about the President's actions immediately after 9/11. Specifically, why did he allow planeloads of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, out of the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks? Who asked him to give the Saudis special treatment? Was he aware that the Saudi Arabian government and members of the royal family gave money to charities that funded al-Qaeda?

It is easy to cast blame in hindsight. Even if Bush had been obsessed with the terrorist threat, 9/11 might not have been prevented. But the President's apparent lack of rigor?his incuriosity about an enemy that had attacked American targets overseas and had attempted an attack at home?raises a basic question about the nature and competence of this Administration. And that is not a question the Republicans want you to take to the polls in November.

You're actually a greater danger to yourself than the terrorists are, statistically speaking.

With an intellect that size he's probably a threat to his immediate environment as well.

www.bushisahahahaha.com ;)

BUSH=TERRORISM

Where's Mutt? Funny how he shut the fuck up himself, right after he got proved wrong 7 or 8 times.

lol

passed out near a pile of his own fecal matter?

How do you explain Madrid then if Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda, when are you going to wake up?

He's waiting for 12clicks to get back

Maybe I can fill in for 12clicks....


How was that?

Fokkin' sweet. Are you available for lynchings as well?

the only reason al queda has anything to do with iraq is b/c we attacked iraq. and using CIA to get the terrorists doesn't appeal to the ego enough for GWB.

Bush and ashhahahahaha are not good for porn business.

What he said!

Now thats a noble deed!

dear liberal children, its a war on terror, not a war on al queda.
I understand liberal children can't make the mental connection, that's why Bush doesn't worry about you and your french ideas.

And Mr nazi and his North Korean friend is here to tell all about how we should be doing that

But Iraq has nothing to do with terror. Terror towards the people of Iraq possibly, but not international terror.

The effort should be concentrated on terror networks that are, or could be planning attacks on western countries first. Protect yourself first, then look after others.

While Iraq sucked, it was a secular regime with no room for extremist terror networks. If anything, the networks would have been targetting saddam for his genocide of shia muslims.

Our battle plan is just ass backwards. Starting at the end and ending in the beginning.

Mutt I knew I liked your a a good reason. Too many of these people think with what they see on the leftist news stations like CNN. It's time for many of you start thinking for yourselves and understanding the problem at hand.

The war against Saddam was not against Al Qaeda it was against Saddam for promoting terrorism and killing thousands of people because they didnt conform to his beliefs just as Al Qaeda does on a daily basis because we do not conform to theirs. Start using your head and stop listening to the media and read, form your own opinions, even though you may be a democrat read news from drudgereport.com and read between the lines. There are way too many new leftists on this board, its just amazing.

Iraq was supposedly part of the "war on terror". Spain joining the US would mean spain is fighting the "war on terror". Therefore, they would also be there when the US went after the terrorists themselves. Call it a pre-emptive strike.

Oh my God this is better than TV

Terror is terror dude? Saddam has been funding terrorism around the globe for ages, and its nothing new, you guys are looking at the most recent war only, look at history.

Is that so? Let's go then. I'm all for invading North Korea and the other dictators who are much worst than Saddam. Come on, let's move.
Kuwait is not a dictatorship, nor Saudi Arabia nor Egypt? Oh they happen to be allies, I forgot about that one.