[Am-info] here is a well done synopsis of bush's failures

[mikestp@shaw.ca]

From: Steve <gsteve200@yahoo.com <http://us.f139.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gsteve200@yahoo.com&YY=96142&order=down&sort=date&pos=0>>
Subject: Send to Undecideds


I've posted some great emails that use facts, logic and common sense
that proves that George Bush is brainless, arrogant and incompetent. 

My best ones - sort of my "Greatest Hits" - are below. 

As we know, undecideds will decide this election.  So if anyone knows
any undecided voters - or moderate/independents that are wavering one
way or the other - that need proof that Bush has been a colossal
disaster, forward this email to them. 

But don't bother with Republicans.  They're so brainwashed it's like
trying to reason with a door knob. 






1. Logic Proves War Based on Lies

Even though Bush and the whole world knew - or thought they knew - that
Iraq had WMDs, it was only assumed.  But not only does logic prove that
it was a senseless war to begin with, it also proves there was no
"imminent threat."  And Bush knew it.   
 
1. Germany invades Europe twice in the 20th century; Communists move
into SE Asia, the Soviets invade Afghanistan; Saddam Hussein invades
Kuwait.

Americans were angry at such unprovoked invasions and said things like:
"Why are they doing this?"  "What do they want?" "Don't they want
peace?"  "(Hitler/Hussein etc.) is an egomaniacal megalomaniac war
monger."  

They were the bad guys.  

So why shouldn't we be perceived as the bad guys in Iraq now?  Why
shouldn't we be hated as much as we hated Iraq when they invaded
Kuwait?  And why shouldn't George Bush be thought of as an "egomaniacal
megalomaniac war monger?"   

2. Has there ever been a time in history when one country invaded
another - in a volatile part of the world where the invading country
was already disliked - and it worked out well?  

And what has "occupation" done for Israel in the territory's, the
Russians in Chechnya, the British in Northern Ireland and the Soviets
in Afghanistan?

"Learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it."  Unfortunately,
Bush never heard that quote.  

Somehow, "no more Vietnams" also got past him. 

3. If invading Iraq is justified because of a "threat," then would it
have been alright for Iraq or Iran to invade Israel?  Israel's a real
threat to them because they have nuclear weapons.  What about Israel
invading them?  Would that be justified?  What about North and South
Korea, India and Pakistan, and Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq -
would it be justifiable for all of them to invade THEIR "imminent
threat?"  And they're all NEIGHBORS!  What makes us so special that
allows us to invade our "imminent threat" - 8,000 miles away?

4. The White House was explicit, "unequivocal" and not at all ambiguous
about Iraq's WMDs. There was "no doubt" that "vast quantities" -
"thousands of tons" in fact -  were there and they "knew where they
were."  They even warned of "mushroom clouds."   

However, what the White House failed to say, was that their
"intelligence" was based on weak and exaggerated information, a
document that turned out to be a forgery, and on the word of Ahmad
Chalabi, a notorious liar, thief and con man who is now considered to
be a double agent spying for Iran. 

Even Republican Sen. Pat Roberts admitted (heck, he had to!) that if
the Senate had known how weak the evidence was, the war resolution
wouldn't have passed.

5.  According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," CIA director
George Tenent presented Iraq's "case for WMDs" to President Bush.

The presentation was such a flop that even Bush was skeptical and
asked, "is this the best we got?"   But Tenent went on to assure Bush
that it was a "slam dunk case."  But that's not the point.

What's striking, is WHEN this briefing took place - December 2002 -
almost a year AFTER Bush started to beat the war drums.  

Let me see if I have this straight: 

In early 2002, Bush pulls troops and resources out of Afghanistan (yea,
really) that were pursuing al-Quaeda and sends them to the Mid-East. 
Then during the spring and summer, he tries to build public support for
the war.  
 
In September and October Bush goes to the UN, gets inspectors into
Iraq, has Congress "debate" and vote on the war resolution (just prior
to the elections, thus turning out brave soldiers into political poker
chips), and all the while, massing over 100,000 troops in the region. 

And THEN he gets briefed on Iraqi WMDs?  What kind of half-assed
thinking is that?  

That would be like bragging you won the lottery, maxing out your credit
cards because you won the lottery, THEN buying a ticket expecting to
win the lottery!  

But wait, there's more! 

Just weeks before the war started, Rumsfeld asked Turkey if we could
send troops there so they can attack Iraq from the north but he was
turned down (if we had this second front, this massive insurgency in
the "Sunni triangle" may not be happening). 

So let me see if I have this straight: 

Bush spends months telling the world there's a threat, prepares for an
invasion, "cocks the gun," THEN gets briefed to see if Iraq actually
had WMDs - on the assumption they had them (a convenient pretext for
war) and the decision to invade had already been made - THEN trys to
add a major component to the war plan at the last minute, and THEN trys
to find a reason for the war when the WMDs fail to turn up.   

Who does things like that?!  Bush did EVERYTHING backwards!   

The way it's supposed to work, is that the CIA, NSC or another
intelligence agency bursts into Oval Office and hands the President
new, solid, credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is indeed mixing some
nasty chemicals (which didn't happen). 

At that point, the President (who hopefully has half a brain), would
keep it quiet until he came up with a plan of action and implemented
it.  Most likely secret air strikes, which is exactly what Israel did
in 1981.  Because...

6. What kind of fool gives an arch enemy, who has "thousands of tons"
of WMDs all set to fire within "45 minutes," a years warning that we're
going to invade his country?  

In 1962 can you imagine President Kennedy giving the Soviets a years
warning that we're going to invade Cuba? 

If that doesn't prove how bogus this "imminent threat" was, nothing
will.  Because if Saddam Hussein was really brewing some nasty WMDs, 
you can be certain they would have been taken out by air strikes. 

And secret air strikes come at a fraction of the extremely high risks,
costs, lives (to Iraqi's as well as Americans), dollars and
consequences of an invasion.  So why invade when it's too risky and
unnecessary?  

7. Whatever Saddam Hussein had after 9/11 he had before 9/11.  So if he
was SUCH a threat that warranted an invasion, why did Bush wait until
2002 to call for it?  

8. In Feb. 2001 Colin Powell said: "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed
any significant capability with respect to WMDs.  He is unable to
project (EVEN!) conventional power against his neighbors."

So how does Iraq go from that to "thousands of tons" of WMDs in less
than 18 months... while under UN sanctions...while we were watching
them like a hawk? 

9. If Bush really didn't know the information he was getting about
Iraq's WMDs was bogus, why isn't he angry that he started a war that
wasn't necessary?  Why didn't he fire anyone?  And why has he tried so
hard to avoid investigations that would tell us why he was given
information that couldn't have been more wrong?  (I could ask the same
questions about the sloppy intelligence that failed to prevent the 9/11
attacks.  Anyone see a pattern here?). 

If I was President and invaded Iraq based on false information, I
wouldn't be spinning myself into knots trying to justify a senseless
war that has turned into a colossal disaster.  I'd be DEMANDING a full
investigation to see how I was misled so badly.  Our troops in Iraq
deserve that much. 

There is an investigation that's supposed to take place, but Bush
appointed its members, their scope is limited and their final report
isn't due until 2005 (I don't think they even started.).  How
convenient. 

10.  If the war is justified, why do Republicans (and FOX News) treat
the slightest news of Iraqi WMD as if it's the 4th of July and New
Years Eve combined?   

The fact that Bush and his sycophant supporters are trying SO hard to
justify the war ALL the time proves they realize they're on thin ice;
because if the war was truly justified - like Afghanistan - then they
wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it. 
 
11. Why is Bush jumping from one justification to another (whatever
flys I guess)?

First it was WMD, then it was the "mass graves," then it's capturing
Saddam Hussein and now it's 9/11. 

A. WMD - There weren't any.  So how does one move, bury or hide
"thousands of tons" of anything, let alone highly toxic
chemicals...practically overnight...that were all set up to be fired
within "45 minutes?"
 
B. The mass graves - I'm touched by such compassion.  But where's the
compassion for all the people being tortured and killed in No. Korea,
China, Saudi Arabia (oops, they're our friends), Iran, and Cuba?   And
how come we didn't hear a peep out of the GOP when Clinton sat on his
hands while 800,000 Rwandans were being hacked to death in 1994? 

All of a sudden the Republicans give a hoot about Iraqi's?  When have
they ever given a hoot about anyone? 

Besides, with all the innocent Iraqi deaths, Bush is responsible for
his own mass graves! 

C. Capturing Hussein - Well let's see what it's cost to get him: Over
1000 American lives (so far), over 10,000 wounded (so far), over 40,000
innocent Iraqi dead/wounded (so far), $200 billion (so far), our
military is stretched alarmingly thin, Iraq's infrastructure is
destroyed, insurgents and militia groups control some areas, the
country is in total chaos (at least Iraq was stable under Hussains
regime), civil war could break out, and the invasion has done wonders
for terrorist recruitment and fund raising. 

And al-Quaeda (remember them?) is much stronger and dangerous today
because we diverted from that war to go on this wild goose chase (great
going, Mr. President). 

That's a mighty steep price to pay for capturing someone who wasn't
nearly the threat Bush made him out to be; especially when Hussein
could have been contained, regardless of what he had, and contrary to
what Bush said (he was trying to sell a war, what did you EXPECT him to
say?).  

D. 9/11 -  Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11.  Don't you think if
Iraq really did have something to do with 9/11, that would have been
THE REASON to invade?  Just like Afghanistan?

But Bush used the public's misconception that they were involved in
9/11 to gain support for the war (what a guy).  It wasn't until Sept.
2003, when Bush was forced to admit there was no connection. 

And if Bush and Cheney had evidence that Mohammed Atta did meet with an
Iraqi agent - as if that alone would justify an invasion - why didn't
they present that evidence to the 9/11 committee when they appeared
before them?  Heck, since they weren't under oath, they could have made
up whatever evidence they needed. 

12. Case closed:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

I'd like to invite open minded Republicans (a contradictory term if I
ever heard one) to remove that leash the GOP attached to their noses
for a few minutes and check out this article.  

But they won't because they're afraid they'll be proven wrong. 

And besides, ridiculing "libs" and passing it off as "liberal
propaganda" is much easier then using ones intellect to actually learn
something.

Conclusion:

Logic, as well as the facts, prove that Bush was going to invade Iraq,
no matter what.  And he lied, exaggerated and misled the country into
doing it.

It didn't matter that he couldn't have been more wrong...about
everything.  The risks, the costs, the lives, the limbs, the dollars,
the consequences, the loss of our credibility around the world....none
of it matters because Bush knew that he had a base of support that
would gobble up anything and everything he said.     

So Bush is conning his mindless and gullible Republican constituency
with nothing but spin - and each one a blatant hypocrite.  Because if
this disaster in Iraq was all Clinton's doing...ah misdoing, the GOP
would not only have impeached him by now, but they'd be looking into
ways to prosecute him criminally so they could throw him in jail.







2. The Costs of a Senseless War

Since the main rational for the war in Iraq, WMDs, has turned out to be
a total flop, and an embarrassment for the administration, Bush has
tried to justify the war by saying that Iraq and the world is better
off now that Saddam Hussein is behind bars. 

While the Iraqi's might be safer, and that's debatable, the world is
not. But most important, the war and Hussein's capture has come at a
very steep price, a price Bush and the GOP never seem to take into
account. 
 
Therefore, let's take a look at what this war has (and will) cost to
see if it's been worthwhile:

The Physical & Emotional Costs:

1. Over 1,000 American soldiers killed (includes non-combat deaths).
2. Over 10,000 American soldiers wounded (includes non-combat wounded);
over 20,000 if you include "medical & psychological evacuees."
3. Over 200 Coalition casualty's.
4. Hundreds of lost limbs, maimed and deformed.
5. Thousands of GI's who will return with emotional and psychological
problems.
6. Approximately 15,000 Iraqi's killed - many, if not most, innocent
civilians and Iraqi Police. 
7. Approximately 25,000 (a guess) Iraqi's wounded - many, if not most,
innocent civilians and Iraqi Police. 
8. Over 125 foreigners/workers kidnapped - half of them killed or still
missing.

Unfortunately, all those numbers will rise. 

The Financial Costs:

1. Roughly $200 billion so far, on the way to $1 trillion for the first
10 years of this occupation....ah I mean "liberation."
2. Hundreds of billions more, if not $1 trillion, to rebuild Iraq; with
Bush's and Cheney's crony's making all the profits. 
3. The bribes Bush paid to the country's that did offer token support. 
4. Health care, disability and financial assistance to disabled
soldiers.
5. The costs to society due to the crimes some of these emotionally and
psychologically effected GI's will commit over the next 30+ years. 
6. The costs of drug and alcohol treatment centers that they'll need
over the next 30+ years. 

Unfortunately, these costs can only skyrocket.  

(These costs, the exploding deficits and Bush's feckless tax cuts could
force drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  But "starving the
beast" as its called, has always been the goal of the GOP.)

The Costs to our Military and National Security: 

1. We're bogged down and it's no secret that our military is stretched
very thin.  This could give our real enemy's - North Korea and/or Iran
- an opportunity.  China could also exploit the situation by moving on
Taiwan.  And we'll have to remain in Iraq for between three years and
forever, stretching our armed forces that much more (our troops in
Germany and Japan aren't in a hostile environment so any corresponding
analogy won't wash.  And the DMZ has been calm for 50 years).
2. Bush moved troops and equipment from the DMZ to Iraq. 
3. The National Guard and Reserves were never intended to be stretched
as much as they have and deployments have been extended.  So
technically, the draft has been in effect.
4. With all our attention on Iraq, and with the military stretched as
much as it is, we weren't able to take action - politically or
militarily - when Iran and North Korea started building nuclear weapons
of their own.  In fact, an argument could be made that they did this
because they knew we were stuck in Iraq and couldn't do anything about
it (except of course to bribe the Koreans with aid; which is ironic
because when Clinton did the same thing, the GOP had a fit and said he
was "soft on terrorism.").

Also, Iran wants to emerge as the biggest and strongest power in the
region (Israel will sure love that).  And with Iraq defeated - by our
own hand no less - it gives them a golden opportunity to accomplish
that because it was the belligerence between both country's that kept
the other in check all these years.  Great going Mr. President!

Fearing an attack, wouldn't it be ironic if Iran took "preemptive"
action of their own and invaded THEIR "imminent threat" in Iraq by
attacking our troops?

The Costs to the War on Terrorism:

1. The war has and will continue to be a great recruiting tool for
al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups.  It has also done wonders for
their fund raising drives. 
2. All the "bin Laden's" this war will create (this should not be
underestimated).
3. Bush foolishly pulled troops and resources out of Afghanistan in
2002 to go off on this wild goose chase in Iraq.  And that has allowed
al-Quaeda and the Taliban to regroup (al-Quaeda has committed over 20
attacks in the three years since 9/11 after committing just four during
the nine years before.  Great job, Mr. President!).

The Karzai government is a sham, the war lords have regained control of
most of Afghanistan and their heroin crop is flourishing. 

4. In 2002 the military had tracked down al-Quaeda terrorist al-Zarqawi
- who is not only responsible for these ruthless beheadings,  but many
of the major terrorist attacks going on in Iraq - and drew up plans on
more than one occasion to go after him. 

But Bush was preoccupied with Iraq and was unable to give them the
green light to pull the trigger (yea, really).  

5. While going after al-Quaeda with bombs and bullets is all well and
good, Bush's obsession with Iraq allowed him to overlook a wonderful
post 9/11 opportunity: to open an honest dialog with the Arab world
(not that he'd ever think of something so sagacious anyway). 

Over the long run, it's brains, and not bombs, that will make us and
the world safer.  

The Costs to Iraq and Iraqi's: 

1. Iraq's infrastructure practically destroyed.
2. Because of busted water and sewage lines, typhoid and hepatitis are
on the rise.
3. Sporadic electric power and frequent blackouts.  
4. An exponential increase in Iraq street crime and violence - murders,
rapes, kidnappings, assassinations, carjackings, car bombs, IED's,
RPG's...
5. Iraqi prisoner mistreatment and abuse (ironically, Bush had promised
an "end to torture chambers"). 
6. Corruption in the Iraqi Governing Council and Interim Government
(surprise, surprise).

The Costs of the Wars Consequences:    

1. The war has proven to be such a disaster that our only strategy for
the immediate future is to avoid a civil war at all costs (at least
Iraq was stable under Hussein's rule).
2. A number of areas are controlled by insurgents and militia groups. 
And not only are they digging in and organizing, but they're being
joined by foreign terrorists who are using these city's as safe havens.
  
3. We handed Falluja over to the Baathists even though they're the
regime we went to war against.  But because they came under fire
themselves, they have since handed control back to the insurgents.
4. Iraq's oil fields and pipelines are coming under repeated attacks
(which affects the global market). 
5.  It's possible that the insurgents, militia groups or even al-Quaeda
could capture and gain control of some or all of the oil fields (how
nice).     
6. Iraq's police, "army," and National Guard are poorly trained, poorly
equipped and incompetent.  There's also a concern that some of them
can't be trusted and are actually helping the insurgents (yea, really);
and that obviously puts our troops in even more danger.
7. The longer the violence and instability continues, the less chance
there is of a stable secular democracy emerging (as if there ever was a
chance of that happening anyway).  And anything less could turn out to
be disastrous, not only for Iraqi's, but for the whole world.  
8. The new government could turn out to be an Islamic theocracy.
9. When...ah, make that IF an elected government takes hold, it will
have all the life expectancy and stability of the next day's
assassination or truck bomb. 
10. There's skirmish's taking place in northern Iraq between Turkish
troops and the Kurds.  Not only could that lead to a border war, but a
civil war throughout the country.  

If that's not bad enough, should the Kurds attack inside Turkey, it
would trigger a NATO response and we'd be obligated - as well as the
French - to come to Turkey's defense.  

But would we? 

The Kurds gave us their full support and cooperation in this war; in
fact we paid for it.  So it would be ridiculous for us to attack them,
especially when some of the money we gave the Kurds was used to buy
weaponry.  How ironic would it be for our troops to come under fire by
arms that we just paid for?  

So if this senario plays out, would we abandon Turkey, our allies and
our NATO obligations and wind up fighting them and the French? 
Republicans would sure love that. 

Or do we go after the Kurds?  Our troops and the Muslim world would
sure love that. 

11. Inflamed the Israeli-Palistinian conflict.

The Diplomatic Costs: 

1. Instead of country's joining us in Iraq, they're fleeing.  And some
country's have said they will remove their troops as soon as their
commitment has been fulfilled.  
2. The Arab world hates us more than ever.
3. The people of Canada, Europe and the Far East - our closest allies -
hate us while their governments have lost confidence in us because
we've lost our credibility. 
4. Because of the hard feelings they have with Bush over Iraq, our
allies and the Arab world haven't given us their fullest support and
cooperation in combating al-Quaeda and terrorism in general (yea,
really).   
5. Just look at who Bush and the GOP thinks our enemy's are, besides
al-Quaeda, terrorists, and "liberals": France and Germany.  
6. Just look at who our closest allies are, besides Tony Blair who may
have to step down as Labor Leader: Iraqi's and Saudi's 

If that doesn't tell you what a disaster Bush has been, nothing will.  

We trust the Iraqi's so much that we wouldn't give them physical
custody of Saddam Hussein.  And the Saudi's not only torture their own
people, but last year tortured five innocent British citizens and two
others into false confessions (they were finally let go after a trade
in which Bush released five al-Quaeda terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. 
Bush is soft on terrorism!). 

Also remember that bin Laden is a Saudi, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers
were Saudi, and al-Quaeda gets much of their funding from Saudi's.  

Saudi's also fund madrassas, which are terrorist training camps for
children, and they're responsible for this wicked anti-American
Whabbaism as well. 

If that's not enough, Saudi's, who would like nothing more than to see
the demise of Israel, have said that "Zionists" were behind the 9/11
attacks.

What great friends we have, huh? 
 
Bush couldn't have done more harm to our foreign policy, diplomatic
relations and international standing if he tried!

Conclusion: 

Presidents should never risk the lives and limbs of our brave soldiers
unless it's absolutely necessary.  And contrary to Bush's lies,
exaggerations and manipulation, Saddam Hussein could have been
contained at a fraction of the extremely high risks, costs, lives,
limbs, dollars and consequences than this war, regardless of what he
had.

That said, we'll be paying an enormous price - for decades - for
invading a country that did NOT have WMDs and to capture a dictator who
wasn't nearly the threat Bush made him out to be.  So it's obvious that
this war was NOT worthwhile.  Heck, it was asinine!  
 
And anyone who says they'd "do this war all over again" is either not
paying attention, or must be as mindless and gullible as Bush, Cheney
and the GOP needs him to be (this would be like betting against an
instant replay for Christ's sakes!). 

So let's not confuse Presidential leadership and resolve for narrow
minded arrogance, political expedience, damage control and spin,
because Bush would sooner poke his eyes out with an ice pick then admit
he was wrong with this senseless war (heck, he won't even give us the
old political standby - "mistakes were made" - regarding the 9/11
intelligence failures!).

Bush couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq.  And he should be
impeached and jailed for such colossal incompetence and misleading the
country into a very costly and unnecessary war. 





3. Bush's Arrogance, Incompetence & Partisanship

Since there wasn't political or public support for wiping out al-Quaeda
before the Sept. 11 attacks, neither Presidents Clinton or Bush deserve
blame for not taking such action.  However, failing to PREVENT the
attacks, or even TRYING to prevent the attacks, is something else.  And
the country should know who is responsible for that breakdown so they
can be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 Investigating Committee did not place blame
directly on anyone or any government agency.  But with the partisanship
in Washington and around the country as nasty as it is, that's not
surprising. 

While we can throw our hands up and blame both party's for all this
partisanship, I believe that President Bush not only relish's all the
sniping, but orchestrated it with the help of his top political
advisor, Karl Rove.  Here's why: 

George Bush learned from his father that if you lose your base of
support, an incumbent President can not get reelected.  And he knew
that if his incompetence was responsible for not even trying to prevent
the attacks, he wouldn't be able to run for the GOP nomination, let
alone win a second term.  

How do you avoid responsibly for 9/11 and keep your base?  By creating
such a vicious partisan atmosphere that both sides start screaming at
each other.  And as a result, not only do the facts get muddied - an
added bonus - but everyone caught in the middle will throw their hands
up and blame both party's.  And in a heated atmosphere like that, your
base will stick by you, no matter what.  

But most important, nasty partisanship, especially surrounding this
9/11 report, will fend off attacks and accusations because any
accusation would be, well, a "partisan attack." 

If Mr. Bush was truly going after al-Quaeda in 2001, why didn't HE do
anything in response to the attack on the Cole?  Why was he befriending
the Taliban, a ruthless regime that was protecting al-Quaeda, by not
only giving them tens of millions of dollars in aid, but by trying to
cut a deal with them to build a gas pipeline across Afghanistan?  And
why wasn't he even briefed on Richard Clark's plan to attack al-Quaeda
until, ironically, the weekend before 9/11 (President Clinton himself
didn't go through with the plan because he didn't want to hand an
ongoing war to the new President)? 

If Mr. Bush truly isn't responsible for ignoring the al-Quaeda threat
in 2001, why hasn't he told us what preventative measures he took prior
to 9/11?  Why hasn't he shown any anger for what happened?  Why didn't
he fire anyone?  And why has done everything possible to avoid
investigations that would tell us why HE wasn't better informed? 

The answer is obvious: He was incompetent and bears some
responsibility. 

President Bush, who was directly responsible for the nations security
in 2001, was explicitly warned of the al-Quaeda threat by President
Clinton and his outgoing staff; from Jan. 20 to Sept. 10, 2001 there
were 40 intelligence articles in the 'Presidents Daily Briefs" (PDB)
that were bin Laden-related; there were threats of terrorists crashing
planes into buildings at the G8 Summit President Bush had attended in
Italy that July (also, bin Laden had threatened to assassinate George
Bush at the summit); the military was on "high alert" that summer
because of all the "chatter"; and the Aug. 6 PDB, titled "Bin Laden
DETERMINED to STRIKE in U.S.," warned of "suspicious activity in THIS
country consistent with preparations for HIJACKINGS or other types of
attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in NEW
YORK," and concluded "the FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field
investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin
Laden-related." (caps mine) 

Granted, the intelligence wasn't specific.  But at this point, you'd
think a President of the United States - who has a job description like
none other - would have the imagination to put two and two and two and
two and two together, and DEMAND specifics. 

Mr. Bush demanded his golf clubs. 

In July there had been the FBI "Phoenix memo," detailing suspicions
about suspected Islamic radicals taking flying lessons in Arizona.  In
August, terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, who was taking flying lessons in
Minnesota, was arrested.  And the FBI was tracking at least two
terrorists that had entered the country that summer who turned out to
be 9/11 hijackers. 

So if Mr. Bush DEMANDED specifics, as only a President can do, and our
intelligence agency's "shook the trees" - and if the FAA was alerted to
monitor terrorist "watch lists" more closely -  maybe, just maybe, the
dots could have been connected in time to prevent the attacks (imagine
if pictures of the two terrorists the FBI was looking for were put on
TV).

Mr. Bush could have also prepared for the possibility of a hijacking.

(This should not go unnoticed:  When President Bush took office, his
actions and policys on just about every issue, big and small, was
totally opposite of whatever Mr. Clinton did because of the nasty
partisan hatred Republicans had of him.  And it went a lot further than
Mr. Clinton being a Democrat and Mr. Bush being a Republican.  This was
extremely personal and political.  So when President Clinton and his
staff warned the incoming Bush administration to the growing al-Quaeda
threat, there was little chance that the Bush White House - with all
their pride, spite, obstinance and arrogance - was going to act on it
because it would have looked as if Mr. Clinton told them to.  Instead
they focused on their own agenda in 2001: Iraq and missile defense. 
Ironically, if President Clinton and his administration did not warn
Mr. Bush about al-Quaeda, he just might have reacted to the threats. 
So the Republicans are right, 9/11 IS Clinton's fault!)

Is it possible that the reason why President Bush didn't do anything
after the first plane struck - and looked as clueless as he did in the
classroom after the second plane hit - was because if he reacted to it
immeadiately for what it was, a terrorist attack, he'd be admitting he
did have reason to believe something like that could occur, and would
then be forced to admit that he failed to do anything about the threat?

Remember, Mr. Bush opposed creation of the 9/11 committee, he
stonewalled the committee every step of the way, and wouldn't testify
before the committee unless Dick Cheney appeared with him.  Incredibly,
neither was put under oath, and no formal transcript of their testimony
was taken.

Also, Mr. Bush hasn't shown one ounce of contrition, offered the
smallest of apology's, or admitted a single mistake...about anything. 
And when it comes to the intelligence failures regarding Iraq's WMDs,
he has brushed aside all personal responsibly for that as well by
maintaining his arrogant, obstinate and obstructive behavior.     

If I was President and failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks because of
sloppy intelligence, and then started a war - that has turned into a
colossal disaster - based on bogus intelligence, I'd be extremely angry
and would demand complete and thorough investigations to see how I
could have failed my Presidential Oath so miserably.  Twice. 

The 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and our troops in Iraq deserve that
much. 

But instead, all Mr. Bush has done is spin and conduct damage control
in an enraging partisan environment so he can avoid having the finger
of blame pointed on himself; and in turn, created such animosity
between both party's, that determining who is responsible for allowing
the 9/11 attacks - or at the very least finding out why no attempt was
made to prevent them - would be, well, too partisan to have. 
 
Presidents can set a tone.  Either an honest tone where we can have
sensible intellectual discussions, or a heated nasty tone, where
insults, ridicule and rhetoric is shouted back and forth.   

If he really wanted, the President could have acted like one and set an
honest tone from the very beginning by embracing independent inquiry's
into 9/11 and Iraq's WMDs.  But instead, Mr. Bush decided to set an
obfuscating, belligerent and pugnacious tone.  And guess what?  He
secured his base.

It's an outrage that President Bush would use the tragic events of 9/11
to manufacture such nasty partisanship.  But it's ironic that he would
even allow it since he declared himself "a uniter, not a divider"
during the 2000 campaign.  But that shouldn't come as a surprise
either. 






4. Bush's Twisted Logic

Bush calls for an invasion of Iraq because of the "threat" they posed,
but it turns out they weren't a threat at all.  And we learned that
Bush was indifferent to the al-Queada threat from the day he took
office. 

The White House can prove otherwise by simply making a big deal about a
speech Bush made prior to 9/11 that mentioned al-Quaeda or bin Laden -
just one.  The fact that they haven't speaks volumes (however, Bush did
speak extensively about missile defense and Iraq in 2001). 

It also speaks volumes that the White House hasn't released the speech
Condi Rice planned to give on 9/11.  Because if she was going to
mention the al-Quaeda threat, you KNOW they would have.

So now that I've established the truth, let me see if I have this
straight: 

Bush totally ignores a REAL "IMMINENT THREAT," then calls for a
preemptive and elective war against a different "imminent threat," but
pulls troops and resources out of Afghanistan that were going after the
REAL "IMMINENT THREAT" that he ignored and had attacked us, to go after
the "imminent threat" that wasn't a threat at all...

Anyone who can justify Bush's logic must be as mindless and gullible as
the GOP needs them to be.  Seriously.

...and as a result of his twisted logic, Bush has turned the REAL
"IMMINENT THREAT" into a bigger and growing threat, and the "imminent
threat" that wasn't a threat into a very dangerous threat that we'll
have to deal with for years, probably decades.

Bush should be impeached and jailed for such "logic!" 

But wait, there's more!

The excuse the White House gave for not taking action against the
al-Quaeda threats in 2001, is because the intelligence they were
getting wasn't "specific, verifiable or credible."
  
So let me see if I got this straight:

Bush ignores the al-Quaeda warnings that were coming from our
intelligence agency's and his own CIA director - as well as the
warnings his administration received from the Clinton transition - but
he invades Iraq based on a document that turns out to be a forgery
(Africa's "yellowcake") and the word of a notorious liar, thief and con
man (Ahmed Chalbi).

Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me! 





5. Who Forgot About 9/11?

A snide remark President Bush uses to justify the war in Iraq is that
those who opposed it "forgot about 9/11." 

But consider:

* Gen. Tommy Franks had said repeatedly in 2002 that bin Laden wasn't
the "focus" of our military operations in Afghanistan.  
 
* Bush pulled troops and resources - that were pursuing al-Quaeda - 
out of Afghanistan in early 2002 to go off on a wild goose chase in
Iraq. 

* The Taliban and al-Quada have been reforming in Afghanistan, the war
lords control most of the country, the opium crop is flourishing, and
the Karzai government is a sham.  

* Bush never showed any anger, fired anyone, or DEMANDED to know why
there was such a breakdown of the nations intelligence that failed to
prevent the 9/11 attacks (he's also been indifferent to the colossal
intelligence failures regarding Iraq's WMDs; maybe because he knew it
was all bogus.). 

* Bush opposed creation of the 9/11 committee, he stonewalled the
committee every step of the way, and wouldn't testify before the
committee unless Cheney appeared with him.  Incredibly, neither was put
under oath, and no formal transcript of their testimony was taken. 

So if anyone "forgot about 9/11" it's President Bush.  And that's
disgraceful.





6. Logic Proves Bush & Cheney to be Liars

During the lead up to the war, Bush never said that Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11.  Heck, if it was true, Bush would have not only made a big
deal about it, but that would have been THE REASON for invading, not
WMDs.  Just like Afghanistan. 

In fact, Bush was forced to admit last year that there was "no evidence
that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
  
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/18/bush_puts_distance_on_a_hussein_link_to_911/

So while the country was having this "debate" in 2002 about invading
Iraq, Bush failed to correct the myth that Iraq had something to do
with 9/11.  But he used this misconception to gain public support for
the war.  What a guy. 

But recently Dick Cheney said that Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent DID
meet in Prague, contrary to what the 9/11 commission has reported; and
he's turned it into a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, contrary to
what Bush admitted and never even used as a reason for the war.      

Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me. 

Cheney's excuse is that the commission doesn't have "all the facts." 
How does he get away with that ("liberal media." Ha!)?  

This crooked White House stonewalled the 9/11 commission from the very
beginning and refused to hand over all the documents they requested. 
So of course they "don't have all the facts!"

But if Cheney had information regarding this alleged meeting, why
didn't he hand it to the committee when he appeared before them with
Bush?

So let me see if I have this straight:  Bush and Cheney refuse to hand
over documents to the committee, and when they appear before them, they
don't hand over whatever information they have regarding this alleged
meeting.  And when the committee says the meeting didn't take place,
Cheney goes on TV and says it did and that the committee got it wrong
because they didn't have "all the facts."

Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me.

It's obvious as to what's going on:  

1. The Committee would actually check out Cheney's "facts."  
2. Bush and Cheney care more about spin and manipulation then anything
else.
3. Cheney knew that his mindless and gullible base constituents would
believe anything he said.  
4. The media would perpetuate Cheney's spin. 
5. The truth gets muddied. 

"Mission Accomplished."  

But let's assume that Cheney is right, and Atta did meet with this
Iraqi agent.  Yea, so?  Does that justify an invasion of Iraq?  Heck,
if we invaded every country that had an agent who met with an al-Quada
terrorist, we'd not only have to invade just about every country in the
Mid-East, but country's in Africa and Asia as well!

So let me see if I have this one straight:  Because of a (fictitious)
meeting - one lousy meeting! - between Atta and an Iraqi agent, that
justifies invading Iraq, and suffering the enormously high risks,
costs, lives, limbs, dollars and consequences that comes with it?  Talk
about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

And yet, we ignore the fact that Bin Laden is Saudi, 15 of the 19
hijackers were Saudi, al-Quaeda gets much of their funding from Saudi's
and Saudi Arabia is responsible for this wicked Whabbaism and all these
madrassas, which are really terrorist training camps for children.

Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me.

If there were specific and justifiable reasons to invade Iraq which
everyone could agree on - such as going into Afghanistan - then why is
all this spin taking place?   

So the fact that Bush and Cheney are trying SO DESPERATELY - parsing
their words, telling us what they said, what they didn't say, what they
meant to say - to justify this senseless war, it proves that this was
all a lie from the beginning (I love using logic and common sense to
prove Republicans wrong.  It's SO easy!).

Because when you lie, spin, manipulate and mislead a country into a
war, you wind up having to lie, spin and manipulate different
justifications for it.  

And now they're trying to use the Prague meeting to try and justify the
war, which, as I've shown, is totally bogus.  What will it be next? 
That al-Quaeda was planning on invading Iraq themselves to steal the
oil and use the country as a base camp (incredibly, that could very
well happen. Great going, Mr. President!)?  

Bush has been such a disaster that he reminds me of a couple of lines
in a "Honeymooners" episode.  The one where "Ralph" tries to sell the
handy kitchen helper and "Alice" was going over all his other "crazy
hair-brained schemes," all of which failed:

Ralph: No one's a hundred percent, Alice.
Alice:  You are. You've been wrong every time.

But Bush has been so incompetent (they couldn't even design a new Iraqi
flag without a revolt) that he makes "Ralph Kramden" look like Bill
Gates!





7. Kerry's Record?

With all the dislike and nasty attacks spewing from the Republican
party and their supporters against John Kerry, you'd think HE was the
one who...

Pulled strings 30 years ago to avoid the Vietnam draft; didn't even TRY
to prevent the 9/11 attacks because he ignored the warnings from our
intelligence services and the previous administration; squandered all
the sympathy and support the world offered after 9/11; diverted from
the war against al-Quaeda, which has allowed them to regroup and become
more dangerous worldwide; lied, exaggerated and mislead the country
into a totally unnecessary war in Iraq that has become a colossal
disaster; created more terrorists and terrorism; had a net loss of jobs
since the day he took office; turned a budget surplus into a exploding
deficit; failed to do anything about energy, health care, Social
Security or Medicare; repealed numerous environmental laws that
benefited the oil, gas and coal industry's; instituted a drug benefit
program that is a rip off to seniors and a windfall for the
pharmaceutical company's; allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse;
maintained an arrogant, stubborn, belligerent and obfuscating attitude;
and not once taking responsibility or admitting to a single
mistake...about anything. 

Republicans are right.  I wouldn't vote for anyone with such an
incompetent, shameful and disastrous record like that either. 





8. Blatant GOP Hypocrisy 

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton failed to prevent
the 9/11 attacks because he was obsessed with Iraq and missile defense,
turned his back completely on the al-Quaeda warnings given to him by
the previous admistration, and ignored the threats that were coming in
from our intelligence services...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton's General in charge
of the war against al-Quaeda repeatedly said that bin Laden wasn't the
"focus" of our military operations in Afghanistan...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton pulled troops and
resources out of Afghanistan to go on a wild goose chase in Iraq,
allowing the war lords to regain control of the country, the Taliban to
reform, the opium (heroin) crop to flourish and al-Quaeda to commit
over 20 attacks in the 3 years since 9/11, after committing just 4
during the 9 years before...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton admited that
airplane hijackings were still a possibility more than two years after
9/11...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton opposed
Congressional
and independent inquiries into the intelligence failures leading up to
9/11...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton wouldn't hand over
documents to these 9/11 investigations....

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton wouldn't testify
before the 9/11 committee unless he appeared alongside Al Gore, with
neither under oath and no formal transcript of their "testimony" to be
taken...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton didn't show any
anger, didn't fire anyone, and did everything possible to avoid
investigations into both the 9/11 and Iraqi WMD intelligence
failures...(intelligence HE relies on to keep our country safe!)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton called for an
invasion of Iraq based on a document that turned out to be a forgery
(Africa's "yellow cake") and on the word of Ahmad Chalabi, who was
already known to be a notorious liar, thief and con man...that turned
out to be a double agent spying for Iran who we were paying $300,000 a
month to...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton called for a war in
Iraq because of an imminent threat that Saddam Hussein and his WMDs
posed, but he was either lying, exaggerating or couldn't have been more
wrong...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton said that Iraq tried
to get uranium from Africa in his SOTU speech so he can strengthen his
case for war, but he was either lying or wrong...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton said that most of
the
costs for the war and rebuilding the country would be paid by Iraq's
oil
revenues, but he was either lying, again, or couldn't have been more
wrong...again...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Madeline Albright said that
Iraq had "between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent" and an
"active nuclear program," but she was either lying or couldn't have
been
more wrong...

Hey Repubs, WORDS MEAN THINGS!  Rush Limbaugh said that every day when
Clinton was President, and I assumed that would apply to Republican
Presidents and their administration as well.  Silly me.

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton used the lives and
limbs of our brave soldiers like political poker chips by having the
Democrats purposely schedule the Congressional "debate" and ensuing
vote on the Iraq war resolution just prior to the midterm elections...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if the Clinton White House
deliberately leaked the cover of a secret CIA agent because they had a
political ax to grind...and then imagine what the GOP would be
screaming
if Clinton had Janet Reno "investigate" the matter to see who leaked
it...who then waited months to step down before naming a special "in
house" prosecutor to (wink, wink, nod, nod) take over the
investigation...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if this was Clinton's war in
Iraq with all these casualties and chaos...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Al Gore said that our troops
in Iraq would be greeted with hugs and roses - Hey Repubs, WORDS MEAN
THINGS! - but instead had to dodge mortars, shoulder fired missiles,
RPG's, IED's and car bombs...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton totally bungled the
wars aftermath because he (incredulously!) didn't even plan for it...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton never had an exit
strategy in Iraq... 

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton landed on an
aircraft
carrier, declared "major combat operations ended" in a fancy photo-op -
hey Repubs, WORDS (and actions) MEAN THINGS! - and months later spun it
into he "didn't mean the war was over" nonsense when casualties started
to mount...(oh wait, we know EXACTLY what the GOP would be screaming
because they went ballistic after the disaster in Mogadishu because
Clinton had that photo-op on the White House lawn a few months before
declaring the mission was over.)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton declared "Bring it
on" in regards to the insurgents fighting back, and then called our
casualties proof we're making "progress..."

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton didn't do bubkis  
when Iraq started to fall apart during the summer of 2003 because he
was on the golf course...(had Bush done anything about the growing
insurgency at the time, it would have moved our mounting casualties to
the front pages, resulting in a drop in his poll numbers.  So is it
possible that he deliberately ignored the situation to make sure he
remained popular enough to run for reelection?)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Bill Cohen said, "We know
where (the WMDs) are" when the war started - Hey Repubs, WORDS MEAN
THINGS! - but 18 months later, they have yet to turn up... 

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton split hairs about
his
justification for the war and the WMDs that don't exist by saying he
"never used the term 'imminent threat'"...(then why did we invade?  To
give our troops an extended vacation in the Iraqi desert?)...

(oh wait, we know EXACTLY what the GOP would be screaming because the
GOP had a field day every time Clinton parsed his words to wiggle out
of
something he said!)

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if, before the war, Clinton
said, "We know that the (Iraqi) regime has produced thousands of tons
of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas (and) VX
nerve gas" - hey Repubs, WORDS MEAN THINGS! -  but when none of it
turns up, tries to spin his way out of it by saying "they could have
been moved, buried or hidden"...(how the hell do you move, bury or hide
"THOUSANDS OF TONS" of anything, let alone highly toxic
chemicals...practically overnight...when they were set up and ready to
be fired within "45 minutes"?!)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming (laughing hysterically,
actually) if Democrats used an RPG shell at least 15 years old that
contained sarin gas as proof of Iraq's WMDs and therefore justified
Clinton's pretext for the war ("thousands of tons" of WMDs!)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if soldiers Clinton sent to
Iraq who were wounded, had to pay for their meals at the hospital...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if a Chinook helicopter in
Clinton's war, which was shot down leaving 16 dead and 26 wounded,
wasn't equipped with (properly working) measures to protect itself
against a shoulder fired missile...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if some troops Clinton sent
into
Iraq didn't have the proper Kevlar protective vests...and the soldiers
family's had to buy the vests themselves and ship them over...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if the humvees Clinton sent to
Iraq weren't protected with the proper armor, and soldiers were killed
and wounded as a result...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton allowed Iranian
diplomats to negotiate a cease fire...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if the military had tracked
down al-Quaeda linked terrorist al-Zarqawi - who is not only
responsible for these ruthless beheadings, but many of the terrorist
attacks in Iraq - a few times in 2002 and had drawn up plans to go
after him, but Clinton was unable to give them the green light to pull
the trigger because he was preoccupied with Iraq...(oh wait, we know
EXACTLY what the GOP would be screaming because they had a cow when
they learned that Clinton, allegedly, passed up a few opportunity's to
grab bin-Laden)...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if a "lib" aired the audio of
an American getting beheaded on his radio show to make a political
point (a point that couldn't have been more wrong because we went into
AFGHANISTAN - not Iraq! - to go after "terrorists like this!")...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton allowed a former
Saddam Hussein Baathist General to be put in charge of Falluja...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if our troops in Clinton's war
were not allowed to take out a Mosque that was not only firing on them
but had a stockpile of weapons...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Iraqi prisoners were abused
and mistreated at the Abu Ghraib prison and Clinton said that Bill
Cohen was doing a "good job"... 

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Al Gore went up to Capitol
Hill and told the Democrats to "get off" Cohen's "back" in regards to
the scandal and cover-up at the prison...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Democrats spun/minimized the
soldiers killed in Iraq by saying it's less then those killed in WWII,
less than those killed on 9/11, or less than the number of murders
Detroit has in a year...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton's incompetence and
lack of planning caused such a disaster in Iraq, that our only hope for
the short term is to avoid a civil war...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton promised a secular
democracy in Iraq, but Madeline Albright said we might have to settle
for an Islamic Theocracy instead...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Al Gore's company sold $73
million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein
while he was CEO from 1997-2000...then lied about it during his Vice
Presidential campaign...and then as VP, blasted country's that had done
business with Iraq...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Gore's former company was
handed Iraqi rebuilding contracts...and then ripped off the American
tax
payer with overcharges...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton had the nerve to use
footage of a fireman's flag draped remains being carried out of the WTC
wreckage in his campaign ads...but then opposed the release of photo's
that showed flag draped coffins of our soldiers being brought back from
Iraq...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton - and a Democrat
controlled Congress - that already ran up a $300+ billion deficit
requested $87 billion to fund this mess in Iraq and then asked for $25
billion more...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton said we needed
"regime change" in Iraq to make us safer, but even after Saddam
Hussein's capture, security at the airports is higher then it's ever
been, flights had to be canceled because of credible threats and
there's more terrorist attacks around the world...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Clinton couldn't have been
more wrong...about everything, but was too arrogant to admit a single
mistake...

Imagine what the GOP would be screaming if the Democrats impeached a
Republican President for lying under oath in a civil deposition, but
chanted "4 more years, 4 more years!" in support of a Democrat
President that lied, exaggerated and mislead the country into a totally
unnecessary war that turned into a colossal disaster...

What BLATANT HYPOCRISY from the GOP and their mindless and gullible
sycophants!  Because if this was all Clinton's doing - ah, misdoing -
you KNOW the Republicans would be having a conniption fit and would not
only be screaming - SCREAMING! - for impeachment, but they'd be looking
to prosecute Clinton criminally so they can put him in jail...for life!

I guess when a Republican President misleads the country into a
senseless and very costly war, with no end in sight, the GOP and their
sycophants see nothing wrong with it.  

What phoney's!  I'd sooner trust a $3 bill then these hypocrites! 

I'd love to see how you sycophant Repubs spin this blatant hypocrisy. 
What are you gonna do, call me a "lib?"  Or will you try and refute
everything I've said and stick up for your brainless, arrogant,
incompetent President?  Well, "bring it on" because then you'll be
proving my point, exactly!  

In fact, if this really was all Clinton's misdoing, can you imagine Tom
DeLay, Trent Lott and the rest of the Congressional Republicans, Sean
Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative lapdogs on TV
and radio, and mindless and gullible Republicans - many of whom post on
these boards - saying: "Clinton's passive approach to al-Quaeda is fine
with me...Clinton didn't lie or mislead the country into a war in Iraq
at all...he's shown great leadership, honesty and character and has
done such a wonderful job making the world safer, that he deserves four
more years..."

What a nauseating bunch of phoney's! 






9. More Bush Spin

Bush said that the elections in Iraq will take place in January as
scheduled.  And for some reason, he's hailed as a "strong leader" who
has "resolve."   

Give me a break, what the hell do you EXPECT him to say?  

Since the elections are 4 months away, there's NO reason whatsoever to
even infer that they might have to be postponed!  Especially, when
there's NO upside to saying that!  

Because if Bush did, it would be admitting failure.  And for a guy who
won't admit any mistakes, that won't happen.  Ever. 

It would also tick off the cleric, Al-sistani, who was promised
elections, and he'd call for a jihad against us.  And if that happened,
it would create such chaos that it would make what's going on in Iraq
look like a picnic. 

So Bush is only saying what he has to say!  Duh! 

But if these "elections" are held, they'll be such a joke.  Because how
the hell are they going to ensure that they're honest and above board? 
Who's going to monitor these elections?  You think thousands of
observers are going to risk their lives by coming to Iraq?  

But most important, a long line of Iraqi's stretching for blocks,
heading into a polling place, will be perfect targets for suicide
bombers!  And they can't be protected!

There's no way elections can be held until the country is stabilized. 
And that's not happening any time soon.  So Bush is just spinning like
a top!   

But why is the so called "liberal" media portraying Bush's "resolve,"
and reporting that he's "staying the course no matter what," as if he's
some great leader "who says what he means" when he has NO OTHER CHOICE
but to keep saying "elections will be held in January?"  

Anyone who's painted himself so far into a corner that he's got paint
on his shoes, WOULD show "resolve!"   It's a game of chicken and his
steering wheel doesn't work! 

Why does the "liberal" media, mindless and gullible republicans and
moderates and independents fall for this crap?  

If Bush said the world was flat, would they believe that too? 

Bush is nothing but a chicken himself who doesn't give a friggin' hoot
about anyone or anything - except his reelection.