Why wasn't the Bush shaved?

[MetalMilitia]

Some things on my mind after Bush's Parties.

Since the day, almost TWO YEARS AGO, when he declared "mission accomplished", things have rather deteriorated in Iraq.
U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 71 per month.
The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 708 during the same period.
Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2300 and more a month. A MONTH.
And on Iraq's economy side? It looks just like the businesses Bush used to run (run, meaning "run" into the ground) Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.
Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.
More : http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10703534.htm

Are we doing much good in Iraq? Even staunch Bush supporters, and republicans in the senate are beginning to admit things look bad. Last time I checked, the majority of Americans now say invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... by a widening margin. Who still supports George's vision of Iraq?

http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/topten2004list.htm - Oh yeah, those people might... but it isn't the "heartland of America" you claim to represent... yet seemingly ignore at every turn.

Spending millions for Bush's "parties" seem to be more important than funding underpriveledged kids... or providing more benefits... or getting vital armor to the troops serving over there. Hell, even helping out the tsunami victims is on my mind more than some elaborate party for a man who has a 49% approval rating. 22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1

What else could we have done with that amount of money?
200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1
26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million. http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1106139753241490.xml
$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4187023.stm
I'm sure DC residents were thrilled about the festivities. $17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4187023.stm ).... and another number - 9%: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004. ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0119/p03s01-uspo.html )

That pesky WMD thing

If you didn't hear by now, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since the early 1990s. LYING or as they like to call it, "bad intelligence", seems to be the scapegoat - "everyone else said Iraq had WMD". Well you know what you should have done with the millions spent on gathering intelligence? Read an internet blog for free - problem solved. 50% of this country, as well as the vast majority of the entire world KNEW there was no threat from Iraq, especially not IN THE US (Mushroom cloud over yourtown USA) and KNEW there were little or no "WMD". Don't even get me started on the supposed "ties to 911".

It was ooga-booga... and now you're trying to grasp other reasons.

In Iraq, the U.S. project of "imposing democracy at gunpoint" is taking an enormous human toll. In order to give elections set for January 30 a semblance of legitimacy, U.S. forces are trying to squash the growing rebellion in Sunni areas of Iraq. Car bombs and fear run rampant on all the citizens, and sadly the ones heavily effected by the military action are innocent women and children.

The Iraq Election?

The standards have been lowered so much it's ridiculous. Aside from the fact that the canididates running are VITRUALLY UNKNOWN by the Iraqi people (mainly due to the threat of beinh assasinated) they still expect there to be some kind of resolution. That makes little or no sense. They won't show the candidates faces, they won't let them speak in public... how do these people even know who or WHAT they are voting for? To make things even worse, No Foreign Observers will be monitoring the Iraq Vote. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28599-2005Jan22?language=printer

In Ninawa province, where the northern city of Mosul is located, only 600 out of 13,000 police are showing up for work, making the task of organizing polling stations seemingly impossible. In Anbar province, where Falluja is located, there only 32 polling stations for 800,000 people, according to National Public Radio. Election officials in Anbar are simply too frightened to show themselves on the streets to prepare for the vote. The same goes for the candidates. "The members of the parties [participating in the election] are hidden in their headquarters surrounded by concrete blocks," said a 52-year-old government employee.

"They are conducting their electoral campaign with posters, placards and television advertisements only, but none of them dares to appear among the people in the streets. They are afraid for their own security."

Maybe Bush will have thousands of Diebold voting machines flown in to whatever candidate needs a victory?

Enjoy it while it lasts

Even as President Bush was taking the oath of office and delivering his Inaugural Address beneath the clear, cold skies of Washington, the news wires were churning out stories about the tragic mayhem in Iraq. There is no end in sight to the carnage, which was unleashed nearly two years ago by President Bush's decision to launch this wholly unnecessary war, one of the worst presidential decisions in American history. (in my humble opinion) Incredibly, with more than 1,360 American troops dead and more than 10,000 wounded, and with scores of thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded, the president never once mentioned the word Iraq in his Inaugural Address. As American forces remained mired in the quagmire of Iraq into which they were led by the Bush administration's deliberate misreading of intelligence information, the president offered no indication whatsoever that he had learned (let alone admitted) from the mistakes and misdeeds of his first term.

That pisses me off. Somone needs to slap this man into the same world everyone else is living in... Ill even volunteer to be the one to do it! Damn, I didnt have a few hundred thousands dollars to sit down with him at one of his personal lunches.

Anyone got some spare change?

[stewey]

Why didn't bush lose?

Because his main opposition, John Kerry, waffled more than the chef at IHOP.

[Strife]

I hear ya man. :2thumbs:

We have here...

a mentally defected president
blinded citizens
and a growing number of problems.


How do we go about solving this? What are your resolution(s) everyone?

[angel]

Why didn't bush lose?

Because his main opposition, John Kerry, waffled more than the chef at IHOP. (funny..lol)


And the morally righteous was more concerned about banning same sex marriage than having a job. A gay/lesbian with a job must really piss them off..


.

[lotrfan55345]

(
And the morally righteous was more concerned about banning same sex marriage than having a job. A gay/lesbian with a job must really piss them off..


Lol!!

I think NASDAQ will go below 1000 in the next 4 years.

[substand]

Since the day, almost TWO YEARS AGO, when he declared "mission accomplished", things have rather deteriorated in Iraq.

Clearly, Bush got caught up in the moment speaking to the troops, and declared "mission accomplished" referring to the overthrow of the Hussein regime (or its losing its power). No one thought the entire strategic mission was done, and Bush did not pretend it was. A major part of it was done, but you simply cannot think anyone thought that the entire thing was over at that point, including Bush (as he said "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done"). Major combat operations he declared over, and with only a couple of exceptions, has remained mostly correct.


And on Iraq's economy side? It looks just like the businesses Bush used to run (run, meaning "run" into the ground)

Of course it will take some time to rebuild the oil and electricity, and other parts of the economy. It is not something that is likely to have happened in a year and a half, especially given that the war is not over. I think you are expecting impossibilities to occur if you expect that the economy in a country which is clearly unstable would be stable and robust.


What else could we have done with that amount of money?

While I also think the 40 mil for the party was a bit much, spending it on the inauguration and still helping tsunami victims and making improvements in the military are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to present them. Making government expenditures needs to be approved and the money appropriated by congress. Throwing the party was funded by private donors who gave the money to the party for the party.


If you didn't hear by now, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since the early 1990s.

This is news to me. " A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm) ... so thats mid 90s at least, and even then there were still some, just not any of "significance." just like the sarin and mustard shells we found. they are classed as wmd, but i suppose they were not of significance, as there wasn't enough of them or they didn't work or something.


Read an internet blog for free

blogs are notorious sources for good intel.


It was ooga-booga... and now you're trying to grasp other reasons.

not really, there were several factors all converging on iraq that led to war there. those other factors were the reasons behind "why not nk," "why not iran."


50% of this country, as well as the vast majority of the entire world KNEW there was no threat from Iraq, especially not IN THE US (Mushroom cloud over yourtown USA) and KNEW there were little or no "WMD".

none of the people you are citing "knew" anything except that they were against war whether or not there were WMD.


The Iraq Election?

No doubt the election is being held in shaky conditions, and improvements are needed. It is far from ideal. However, the election is important and the outcome of this war depends on the elections happening. They don't need to be perfect elections, but what they need to do is elect a group of Iraqis who will make up the Constitutional convention and that convention needs to come up with a good document that can run the country fairly. If that happens, the rest will sort itself out with some nudging.


Incredibly, with more than 1,360 American troops dead and more than 10,000 wounded, and with scores of thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded, the president never once mentioned the word Iraq in his Inaugural Address.

I don't find that all that incredible or neccesary. I'm sure it will be coming in the SOTU address. Iraq is simply a battle in the larger war on terror, imo.

[DontBeAfraid]

I have always been terrified by iraq

[stewey]

Unemployment is LOWER now than it was at this time in 1997 (after Clinton's second inaugeration)

[lotrfan55345]

Unemployment is LOWER now than it was at this time in 1997 (after Clinton's second inaugeration)

No...

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/lns14000000_148670_1106540067119.gif

[MetalMilitia]

This is news to me. " A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm) ... so thats mid 90s at least, and even then there were still some, just not any of "significance." just like the sarin and mustard shells we found. they are classed as wmd, but i suppose they were not of significance, as there wasn't enough of them or they didn't work or something.
No one will admit it, not even the US media will hold the Bush administration to account. Take that list with what we did "find" - OK? Now have Bush go on TV and tell the American public that those weapons (which we probably sold them) represent a threat to the US. Have Powell give satellite photos and analysis on a few shells laying in the sand. OoooOOoooh. After that report, have rice go on TV and tell everyone (keeping in mind they probably have a made in the USA sticker on them) "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Everyone now is denying and switching gears about the immiediate reasons the US went it... Go back and re-read FOX and CNN archives in the build-up. They cite WMD this WMD that and a whole bunch of Saddam is evil stuff - that's all fine and dandy. There were no actual "WMD's" and Saddam is gone. The election is in 6 days... so why not bring em on home?

No doubt the election is being held in shaky conditions, and improvements are needed. It is far from ideal. However, the election is important and the outcome of this war depends on the elections happening. They don't need to be perfect elections, but what they need to do is elect a group of Iraqis who will make up the Constitutional convention and that convention needs to come up with a good document that can run the country fairly. If that happens, the rest will sort itself out with some nudging.
Large turnouts are expected among Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims in the south and minority Kurds in the northeast. But the big question is whether Sunni Arabs will play ball. They obviously DONT LIKE their country being run by the U.S. Having them not go along with the elections would butcher everything.

And you Sam... would you vote for someone you'd never heard or seen speak? Can you even call it legitimate? You skipped over the whole fact that while the Iraqis are voting, they, for the majority of them, have no idea WHO or WHAT they are voting for.

I don't find that all that incredible or neccesary. I'm sure it will be coming in the SOTU address. Iraq is simply a battle in the larger war on terror, imo.
No - Him not mentioning Iraq with all of his "visions" is ignorance. Let's say you're at a party, and theres a BIG GIANT TURD floating in the punchbowl. Would you walk up and fix yourself a cup, and not say or tell anyone about it?

I will also mention this interesting little piece...

"It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

The only thing I see in the SOTU is a push for "tough resolve" on NK and Iran... which if it involved military action, would screw the U.S. reservists, and likely spark the D-Word... *cough*Draft*cough* You should really read more UK papers for US news... a sad part of FOXCNNNBCCBS is the fact that they won't directly attack Bush like the UK papers do.

Remember when the lady from Ireland was it?... She did that interview with Bush and asked him ACTUAL tough questions? He got all whiney about it, and said it was disrespectful - I say thats bullshit. We need more questions like that to avoid the propaganda we were all fed in the lead up to Iraq.

[dutchie]

Remember when the lady from Ireland was it?... She did that interview with Bush and asked him ACTUAL tough questions? He got all whiney about it, and said it was disrespectful - I say thats bullshit. We need more questions like that to avoid the propaganda we were all fed in the lead up to Iraq.
No, I don't... can you get me link where I can read that interview? Now you really got me curious!!

[MetalMilitia]

http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=41408&postcount=22 and http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=41655&postcount=24

Old news, but it's a point that the American media is watered down - and that reporters from other countries aren't afraid to push these officials.

People get the picture somehow that these administration figures are above other people in the social ranks somehow. Bullshit - we're all human, we're all carbon based life forms. Most media pools in the US are reporters that, when are directed to, ask a prescripted question, or ask a question in a manner that won't DIRECTLY confront the president. I think that's a bad policy, cause we all know Bush has enough yes men surroudning him already.

[substand]

No one will admit it, [the administration]

Of course they won't admit it. Admitting it would only be political suicide. It wont do anything to make people "forgive" but would be much cannon fodder for political enemies. It just would be idiotic to admit to making any mistakes (to specific items).



And you Sam... would you vote for someone you'd never heard or seen speak? Can you even call it legitimate? You skipped over the whole fact that while the Iraqis are voting, they, for the majority of them, have no idea WHO or WHAT they are voting for.

As a matter of fact, I vote all the time for people I've never heard or seen speak (the people lower on the ticket). I can't call it legitimate, but I can say that it can still work to promote and build a stable, free, Iraq if it is done properly. Making the preconstitution constitution like they did is a good start, IMO. It has set up the bounds where one of the "sources of law" will be the Qur'an. That provision has the ability to keep the Shia from running over the place with something like Iran, where all power rests with the vali. So when drafting the new constitution, they can create a legitmate govt that will lead to a stable and free iraq. I'm not putting any percentages on the likelihood of that happening as I'm talking about, because I don't know enough about the current constitution, especially regarding how it will be reflected in the new constitution.


No - Him not mentioning Iraq with all of his "visions" is ignorance. Let's say you're at a party, and theres a BIG GIANT TURD floating in the punchbowl. Would you walk up and fix yourself a cup, and not say or tell anyone about it?

the visions were above and beyond iraq. Reagan didn't mention the USSR in his first inaugural address, and then only 4 times in the 2nd. The theme of the speech was to lay out broad visions, not narrow tactics for winning in Iraq, therefore mentioning Iraq would have been out of place in that speech. I mean, it just seems like something for the Bush haters to hold on to like "look, he's already forgotten about the mess he made." He hasn't forgotten, I don't think. I think you'll see a lot more about Iraq in the SOTU address.


"It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

I think thats a scenario we expected, or even wanted to happen.


The only thing I see in the SOTU is a push for "tough resolve" on NK and Iran...

Is that a prediction or did you see the SOTU already? (This is a real question, not trying to be an ass)

[MetalMilitia]

Of course they won't admit it. Admitting it would only be political suicide. It wont do anything to make people "forgive" but would be much cannon fodder for political enemies. It just would be idiotic to admit to making any mistakes (to specific items).
Point and case - we treat these people like they aren't human and never make mistakes. If having sex with an intern is a near impeachable offense, don'tcha think lying (bad intelligence use haha) should be more heavily (or even more) scrutinzed?

I think thats a scenario we expected, or even wanted to happen.
Uhm. I don't think we had any kind of plan - and if there was one, who the hell proof read it?

Is that a prediction or did you see the SOTU already? (This is a real question, not trying to be an ass)
Just call me Militiadamus motherfucker.

[substand]

we treat these people like they aren't human and never make mistakes. If having sex with an intern is a near impeachable offense, don'tcha think lying (bad intelligence use haha) should be more heavily (or even more) scrutinzed?

Well, maybe it should be, but one was a crime and the other was not. Don't trivialize bad intelligence by trying to make a partisan case that Bush lied- because then we will never get to the root cause of why our intelligence failed, or why our analysis of it was so off.


Uhm. I don't think we had any kind of plan - and if there was one, who the hell proof read it?

There were probably several contigency plans, but I could not tell you who made them or who proofread them. But I certainly think that we expected and probably wanted a whole bunch of terrorists to come to Iraq, as it keeps the focus their and not here. I don't think that terrorist groups in general must choose one or the other, but each individual does.

[dutchie]

Where is this unconditional support of the POTUS coming from, Subs? You spend hours and hours on these forums trying to bend the wrongdoings of Bush straight again... One would almost conclude you're on the republican party payroll... Bush just MADE a lot of MISTAKES, he LIED over and over again, he has alienated the USA from most of the world in a fraction of the time it will take to restore those relations. He plays world police commisioner. In short, the man fucked up horribly. And yet you back him one hundred percent. Amazing.

[MetalMilitia]

Firstly : http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/01/10/Arts/armstrong050110.html


and now:
ANOTHER COLUMNIST WAS PAID TO PROMOTE BUSH PROPOSAL
Tue Jan 25 2005 20:13:59 ET

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."

Impacting...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mg.htm

So the Bush admin is now found a SECOND time to be paying JOURNALISTS to promote their ideas. These are only 2 exposed incidents - think it could be slightly more widespread? Journalism is a discipline of collecting, verifying, reporting and analyzing information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people. Those who practice journalism are known as journalists. NOT taking payments to be for it or against it.

Anyone care to take a stab at that? Im sure you can explain the logic behind the ethics.

[substand]

Where is this unconditional support of the POTUS coming from, Subs? You spend hours and hours on these forums trying to bend the wrongdoings of Bush straight again... One would almost conclude you're on the republican party payroll... Bush just MADE a lot of MISTAKES, he LIED over and over again, he has alienated the USA from most of the world in a fraction of the time it will take to restore those relations. He plays world police commisioner. In short, the man fucked up horribly. And yet you back him one hundred percent. Amazing.

Mistakes in your eyes are not mistakes in my eyes. I don't say he hasn't made mistakes, but seek only to clear up the innacuracies and explain the world as i see it sometimes, and the world as it could be seen in other times.

Saying that Iraq's elections can produce a stable country despite the fact that many Sunni Muslims won't be voting is not a defense of Bush. It is the truth. Concluding that Bush didn't lie about WMD because the entire world thought Saddam had WMD is not a defense of Bush. It is logical. Understanding why Bush does not admit directly to any major mistakes is not a defense of Bush. It is understanding how politics works. Explaining my view on why I didn't think it was wierd that Bush didn't mention Iraq in his inaugural address is not a defense of Bush. It was reasoning that the speech had a "higher purpose." Pointing out that bloggers didn't "know there were no WMDs" is not a defense of Bush. It is fact.

Besides, it would be pretty boring if no one defended Bush. This board is full of people who dislike him, very few ever defend him. The ones who do like him and seek to defend him are hens in a foxhouse, waiting to be destroyed for being 15, or often some other irrelevant thing. In essence, its not so much that I'm trying to defend Bush- its more like I'm trying to set the record straight. If you don't like Bush or his decision to go to Iraq- fine. Don't say he lied though, as that flies in the face of every bit of evidence we have from before the war. If you don't like the fact that commentators are being paid to comment on things, fine. Don't portray it as if Bush told the Whitehouse publicist to tell the career bureaucrats to pay commentors for friendly comments about something they were commenting friendly about before they were being paid. I'm just trying to put things in perspective, most of the time.

[DontBeAfraid]

as that flies in the face of every bit of evidence we have from before the war.
The weapons inspectors found something?

[MetalMilitia]

Saying that Iraq's elections can produce a stable country despite the fact that many Sunni Muslims won't be voting is not a defense of Bush. It is the truth. Concluding that Bush didn't lie about WMD because the entire world thought Saddam had WMD is not a defense of Bush. It is logical. Understanding why Bush does not admit directly to any major mistakes is not a defense of Bush. It is understanding how politics works. Explaining my view on why I didn't think it was wierd that Bush didn't mention Iraq in his inaugural address is not a defense of Bush. It was reasoning that the speech had a "higher purpose." Pointing out that bloggers didn't "know there were no WMDs" is not a defense of Bush. It is fact. It's credibility - He doesn't wanna look like he's weak, or made a bad move - but don'tcha think it's a little too late? Sure he got reelected, against a TERRIBLE opponent... UGH - ya know what. Nevermind

/me hands substand a bowl of punch
Drink up!
its not so much that I'm trying to defend Bush- its more like I'm trying to set the record straight. If you don't like Bush or his decision to go to Iraq- fine. Don't say he lied though, as that flies in the face of every bit of evidence we have from before the war. If you don't like the fact that commentators are being paid to comment on things, fine. Don't portray it as if Bush told the Whitehouse publicist to tell the career bureaucrats to pay commentors for friendly comments about something they were commenting friendly about before they were being paid. I'm just trying to put things in perspective, most of the time.

You're still sugarcoating everything. Why don't you just go ahead and call his second term goal "to lower expectations but to avoid any definition of success." A lie is a statement that is untrue, when the falsity of the statement is known or suspected by the speaker. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. A person who tells a lie, and especially a person who habitually tells lies, is a liar.

No? I guess it was months and months, dozens of speaches, and some other word for lie or selective truth I'm not familiar with. Even if it wasn't his intent to lie or deceive, then it falls squarely on somone under him - someone in the "yes man" Bush administration. Oh wait, Tenet got reemed on that one - "slam dunk" eh? The others got promotions.

...Surely Bush doesn't believe America has the power to remake the world in its own image - other than by being an example for others to follow? Well he does, and so do his war hawk neoconservative buddies that are leading American into all this. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions... Are you gonna support his crusade through the middleast? You gonna support his actions that result in the deaths of thousands (more)? Innocent men, women and children included. They can't all be good christian (WHAT HAPPENED TO THOU SHALL NOT KILL ANYWAYS?), reality tv watching, bon bon eating Americans ya know. It's ignorant to think otherwise.

BUSH PLEDGES TO WITHDRAW TROOPS IF ASKED BY IRAQ - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html?ei=5065&en=65955aa80492b070&ex=1107493200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

Oh how I hope they do - but they obviously won't. Evil Saddam gone, no wmd's, their new government in the works - no more days like yesterday. No more losing "record numbers" of American soldiers in one day. Maybe we could focus on some positive - like helping these people ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4211595.stm )

[stewey]

Bush sucks, but Kerry sucks more. That is why Bush was re elected.

[MetalMilitia]

And in a related story... Massive cow manure mound burns for third month... (http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Massive%A0cow%A0manure+mound%A0burns+for%A0third+ month+-+Jan+28%2C+2005&expire=02%2F27%2F2005&urlID=13029447&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FUS%2F01%2F28 %2Fcow.fire.ap%2Findex.html&partnerID=2004)

What a deceptive headline - I thought it was about Bush. Stewey you are absoloutly correct, the fact that the strongest opponent to Bush was Kerry says something about our two party system.

[MetalMilitia]

Third Columnist Caught with Hand in the Bush Till

Michael McManus, conservative author of the syndicated column 'Ethics & Religion,' received $10,000 to promote a marriage initiative.

One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, 'Ethics & Religion,' appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905Z.shtml

Such bullshit.

[Havoc Angel]

Hehe, seems Bush Inc. is lacking in followers when they have to *pay* people to spread their propaganda and don't have willing people to do it for free. :Llol: