DavePlays

"Go Kerry"... Now you see, I like that. I read it, I think maybe Kerry is worth looking at, that there is a "reason" he would make a good President.

When I read comments like

Bush is the idiot son of an asshole

it just makes me think the person posting it the ass hole and nothing good for Kerry comes from it, and it certainly doesn't change anyone's mind about Bush.

__________________
THE BEST CONVERTING TGP
If I were only going to submit to one TGP, it would be BOOK-MARK.NET.

vapewiz

Doh 51 bush posts

Lev

Kerry himself is not the best alternative, but at least he can speak and has some intelligence unlike the ape by the name of Bush.

Fletch XXX

the son of the monkey whore

__________________

Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

Flow

The bottom line is that Bush did not see Al Quada as a threat and it can be proven. Condi Rice has said many times that Al Quada was proity to them from the get go, that the Clinton administration fully briefed them on it on the threat. Now go to Google and do a search of Condi Rice and Terrorism pre-9/11. You get a hand full of returns that talk a lot about Iraq, Isreal/Palistin conflict and a few other terrorist organizations but not one mention of Al Quada - period. Now do a search for Condi Rice and Long Range Missle Defense, again, pre 9/11 and you hundreds of search results back.

Bottom line, if Condi Rice had put Al Quada as a major priorty as she and Bush had said, don't you think she would have talked about them at least once. The New York Times and LA Times very frequently quote the things that Condi Rice talks about and she NEVER mentioned them pre-9/11.

Now based on these facts (and I say facts because we can all do these searches in Google and see the results) let reality set in. Bush and his administration never really cared about AL Quada and never saw them as too big of a threat despite the brieifing given from the outgoing Clinton administration that they were a major threat to our safety.

Say what you will about Al Quada attacks overseas but keep in mind, there was a major Al Quada attack that was stopped by the Clinton admin at LAX on New Years Eve 1999/2000. So say what you will about him, he did take the treat seriously and made changes to stop that threat.

Bush did nothing because he has his sights set on Iraq and the long range missle defense system that Reagan and Daddy Bush tried to hard to get in place but never did.

Every person in his admin that has gone against him (Bush) has been fired very rapidly. Dick Clarke said they need to focus on Al Quada rather than Iraq and pushed the issue and he got demoted and pushed out of the picture (and keep in mind, he is a registered Republican who was first hired by Reagan and keep on by Daddy Bush, Clinton and Baby Bush). The gentleman (his name escapes me) who argued against the Tax Cuts got fired and his wife, who was a secret agent for the CIA, had her name "accidentally" released by the Bush admin.

The list goes on and on of former Bush administration who spoke out of turn or against Bush and is now unemployeed and they all say the same thing - Bush had a woody for Iraq from the get go. This includes a former British ambassador to Washington, who said that prior to 9/11 Bush and Blair got together to plan their attack against Iraq. Then post 9/11 had another meeting where they tried hard to pin it on Iraq and came to the conclusion Iraq would have to wait until the delt with Al Quada in Afganistan.

We can't afford 4 more years period. Kerry is not saint and probably not the best candidate for the job but you have to go with the lesser of two evils here!

foreverjason

hes an idiot.

Flow

For thoses Bush lovers who don't believe my post about how Bush could have cared less about Al Quada prior to 9/11 I found this article for you:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=44356

"The Center for American Progress has compiled an exhaustive, day-by-day overview of the Bush administration's public statements on national security, defense and international issues from Jan. 20 to Sept. 10, 2001. The 50-page compilation includes all official news releases, press briefings, press availabilities, news advisories, speeches, public addresses, executive orders, and proclamations posted by the White House, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice, as well as transcripts of major media appearances by top Bush administration officials, in the eight months prior to 9/11.

While the Bush administration maintains it was focused extensively on terrorism, our analysis of 557 public statements reveals only one mention of al Qaeda by the administration over the 8-month period. Notably, this single mention of al Qaeda was found in a signed notice from President Bush continuing an executive order ? issued by President Clinton ? prohibiting transactions with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was mentioned only 19 times during the same period, 17 of which occurred in the context of press briefings or questions from journalists.

The record clearly shows that terrorism and the threat from al Qaeda were not on the list of priorities for the Bush administration in early 2001."


Gotta love it when an adminstration lies about shit and then gets busted time after time!

Flow

Caught in a lie....

Over the weekend, the Bush-Cheney campaign issued a statement saying the Administration "changed its policies to address the terrorism problem, even before 9/11" claiming that the Bush team "went from a policy of swatting flies to putting al Qaeda at the top of the list." But a look at the record shows just how dishonest this statement is: In the face of warnings before 9/11, the Administration deemphasized counterterrorism; never once convened its own counterterrorism task force; threatened to veto efforts to divert national missile defense funds into counterterrorism; delayed arming the unmanned Predator drone flying over Afghanistan; terminated "a highly classified program to monitor al Qaeda suspects in the United States"; attacked previous Administrations for focusing too much on Osama bin Laden; rejected security recommendations from the government's bipartisan national security commission; and downgraded the counterterrorism office within the White House. In fact, al Qaeda was so low on this list of priorities, that neither Bush, Vice President Cheney or Rice ever once uttered the terms "al Qaeda" or "Osama bin Laden" between the time the Bush team took office and 9/11. Want to know more? American Progress has compiled an exhaustive, day-by-day overview of the Bush administration's public statements on national security, defense and international issues from January 20, 2001 to September 10, 2001.

pimplink

From the moment he start he's era,
he should've been prepared to any
kinds of attacks
possible.

__________________

bringer

"he had the intel and didnt act on 911 so its his fault"
"he acted on the intel he had for iraq and was wrong about WMD so its his fault"

you liberals just dont like bush, so he's your target for anything and everything. i cant wait to see whats next.

__________________
333-765-551

reynold

I don't think he's got a brain.

Flow

I will NEVER understand how someone who is in porn does not concider themselves a liberal unless you are one of those lurkers who just hang out here for the hell of it. By the pure definition of everything that is "conservative" goes against everything that is porn.

And to contradict your statement, the did NOT have the intel for Iraq - we were decieved. Bush and Tony Blair spent 12 (yes 12) days after 9/11 talking about how they were going to pin it on Iraq and take Iraq out. Then when they decided they could not pin it on Iraq, they decided to go after Al Quada and take care of Afganistan BEFORE they took care of Iraq. This is what many former Bush and Blair admins and ambassadors have all been saying.

I also understand that current members of the Bush cabinet have been saying the complete opposite as people like O'Neil and Clarke, but go figure. Their livelyhoods are on the line here after all. It they speak out against Bush, they lose their jobs at the least, and possibly their lives not to mention by their speaking out, their enemy (the Democrats) would regain power of Congress and the White House. So what are a couple of lies coming from the White House to protect good 'ole Bush can easily be justified.

It will be interesting to see what Powell and other exiting members of the admin will say once they get replace by Bush (assuming, God forbid, that he get re-elected) when they no longer have to worry about pleasing Bush.

rett11

ok, let me put it another way...the problem here is that it may be possible that 9/11 was missed b/c Bush was focused on Iraq. And this is fucked up b/c of the lack of good reasons for attacking Iraq, and the fact that none of those reasons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism. Is this really that hard for you conservatives to understand? In a nutshell, Bush may have missed signs that could have stopped 9/11 b/c he was worried about oil, taking care of his rich friends and gaining Iraq as a strategic focal point in the middle east.

__________________
PussyCash pays $100 for every ImLive signup

Rich

It's not that it's hard for them to understand, it's that the Republicans have to ignore a lot of facts to make them able to rationalize what they support. Hense the need for guys like Rush Limbaugh who just distort everything and tell them what they need to hear so they can sleep at night.

Oh and forget about them changing their minds and admiting Bush has been probably the worst President ever, that would mean they have been wrong in the past, and cowboy's are never wrong.

Roger

Remember the Millenium Plot? They did there job, took the warnings seriously and prevented the attack. But then came the Bush admin who didn't take any action even after repeated warnings from the CIA, Egypt and Israel. For them, it was all about getting rid of Saddam.