The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: What does everyone think of the job Bush is doing?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
The latest poll shows only 30% approving the president's performance. How many here are part of that 30%?

Also, if you think he's doing a bad job, when did he "jump the shark"?
hey now!

It all means means that 70% of the people are aproving of the job hes not doing.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

Quote:Also, if you think he's doing a bad job, when did he "jump the shark"?

January 21, 2001
Quote:How many here are part of that 30%?
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />
Keep Smoke
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lmao.gif" alt="Lmao" title="lmao" /> AT you smileodds! lol
Add the proxy votes and it brings it down to 20%.

Shit, does that mean I've now been put on the
"Suspect Terrorist" list and won't be allowed in?

Oh well, just doing my bit to offset global warming!

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
If he had another term left, I bet that the 30% who approve of him would be just enough to get him reelected!
who could be behind any of these sould soul freeks?

red hot chili peppers- The Zephyr Song

get behind freeks like this instead!
In any opinion poll, I am usually in the lowest possible percentile, no matter what the question. However, I think on the topic of "Do you think your President is a dipsh*t" I am finally in the majority. Yay for me - I'm finally a conformist.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/pennywise.gif" alt="Pennywise" title="pennywise" />

Too big a word, him no understand!


Your kidding right?

Unless you have been lurking for awhile, many folks here don't like any of the choices that are either in or aspire to the White House.

Many folks here would love to see the constitution and States rights enforced.

The Constitution doesn't give a flying fig newton which party is in power, as long as the Constitution is still frame of reference to law, rights, order and justice.

see the "Anarchy" thread.
Screw the Bushes.

Off to prison or Paraguay..


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hi.gif" alt="Hi" title="hi" />
stuff like this is why we hate them

FIVE MILLION Emails Deleted?
Subpoena Karl Rove!

On Thursday, the White House said it simply "lost" 5 million emails from 2003 to 2005, plus "thousands" more from RNC accounts.

You don't believe it? Neither does Senator Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Watch his astonished and angry reaction:

Let's hope Leahy is right - that the "deleted" emails can be retrieved.

But in the meantime, it's time to demand full accountability from the person who is clearly responsible both for the illegal use of RNC email accounts and for the illegal deletion of emails: Karl Rove.

Karl Rove has been in charge of everything political in the Bush White House since he stole the 2000 election in Florida.

So when the White House asked the RNC to create email accounts for key White House political operatives, who approved that decision? Karl Rove.

And when the White House deleted 5 million emails, who approved that decision? Karl Rove.

And when all of Karl Rove's emails before 2005 disappeared, who hit the delete key? Karl Rove.

It's time for Congress to subpoena Karl Rove - along with every email he ever wrote or received, either using his White House account or RNC accounts or personal accounts.

Sign our petition to Congress:
Leahy Doubts Bush Aides on Lost E-Mails
By Laurie Kellman
The Associated Press

Thursday 12 April 2007

President Bush's aides are lying about White House e-mails sent on a Republican account that might have been lost, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy suggested Thursday, vowing to subpoena those documents if the administration fails to cough them up.

"They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" Leahy shouted from the Senate floor.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said there is no effort to purposely keep the e-mails under wraps, and that the counsel's office is doing everything it can to recover any that were lost.

"The purpose of our review is to make every reasonable effort to recover potentially lost e-mails, and that is why we've been in contact with forensic experts," he said.

Leahy scoffed.

"I've got a teenage kid in my neighborhood that can go get 'em for them," he told reporters later.

Senate Democrats continued to toughen their stance against the White House over the firings of eight prosecutors over the winter.

After his speech, Leahy's committee approved - but did not issue - new subpoenas to compel the administration to produce documents and testimony about the firings.

Democrats say the firings might have been improper, but that probe yielded a weightier question: Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation - and eventual disclosure - of presidential records.

The White House issued an emphatic "No" to those questions during a conference call with reporters Wednesday, saying the Republican National Committee accounts were used to comply with the Hatch Act, which bars political work using official resources or on government time.

But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel acknowledged that 22 White House aides have e-mail accounts sponsored by the RNC and that e-mails they sent may have been lost.

Stanzel said the White House was trying to recover the e-mails and could not rule out that some may have involved the firings.The administration also is drafting new guidelines for aides on how to comply with the law.

Leahy was not buying that.

"E-mails don't get lost," Leahy insisted. "These are just e-mails they don't want to bring forward."

The revelation about the e-mails escalates a standoff between the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House over the prosecutor firings. The subpoenas come a few days before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to appear before Leahy's committee to fight for his job Tuesday.

Leahy's panel approved new subpoenas that would require the Bush administration to surrender hundreds of new documents and force two officials - Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella and White House political aide Scott Jennings - to reveal their roles in the firings. The panel delayed for a week a vote on whether to authorize a subpoena for Rove's deputy, Sara Taylor.

Leahy has not issued any subpoenas, but permission by his committee Thursday would give him authority to require testimony from all eight of the fired U.S. attorneys and several White House and Justice Department officials named in e-mails made public as having had roles in the firings. The White House has refused to make officials such as Rove available to testify under oath.

calling it a white house is now a racist term!
But...but...the only colors not associated with race epithets are orange, blue, green, indigo and purple! Time to call in the Queer Eye team for a repainting job!
What does everyone think of the job Bush is doing?
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dunno.gif" alt="Dunno" title="dunno" />
I don't know what everyone thinks. I'm afraid most of them don't think at all, and what kind of high school popularity contest question is that anyway?
I'm voting for the next gay black/Mexican illegal immigrant transsexual transvestite anarchist nappy-headed pothead atheist JeWitch who runs for office, see if I don't.
The next King of Ameriqaeda will be even worse than the Treasonous Traitorious Liar-in-Cheat, Osama bin Bush!

Yak Yak Yak <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yak.gif" alt="Yak" title="Yak" />
Quote:I'm voting for the next gay black/Mexican illegal immigrant transsexual transvestite anarchist nappy-headed pothead atheist JeWitch who runs for office, see if I don't.
Liz Michael fits that description, minus 2 or 3 items.
Quote:[quote author="Hecate100"]I'm voting for the next gay black/Mexican illegal immigrant transsexual transvestite anarchist nappy-headed pothead atheist JeWitch who runs for office, see if I don't.
Liz Michael fits that description, minus 2 or 3 items.[/quote]

Is Liz Michael, Michael Jackson? Just asking! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />
Quote:Mary Mapes, former "60 Minutes II" producer, speaks March 31 about her ordeal after the Bush National Guard services story was broadcast. Mapes said after the story ran, its accuracy was questioned.


Fired '60 Minutes II' producer defends Bush National Guard story
By: Robert J. Pohl
Posted: 4/13/07
"Journalism has its ups and downs," a former CBS producer said, "and I'm living proof."

Fired "60 Minutes II" producer Mary Mapes defended the controversial story she produced on President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service at the Society of Professional Journalists Region 8 conference March 31 in Clear Lake.

The report delivered by Dan Rather was structured around photocopies purported to show Bush receiving preferential treatment in the National Guard.

Mapes stressed the documents were neither proved nor disproved. Unapologetic about the report, Mapes said all that she learned from her termination was that it was a mistake " … trusting CBS to be a news organization and not an entertainment company."

With rampant criticism of the current administration, "the amnesia that's gripping the capital," Mapes said, "would it not be believable that documents were suppressed?"

She referred to an absence of records for Bush's service from 1972 to 1973.

Mape's primary argument was that the standard of proof applied to the story was immoderate.

"Journalism is the rough draft of history," she said and argued that encyclopedic standards had been the prism of criticism.

Mapes has 25 years' experience as a news producer and reporter with 15 of those years employed by CBS.

Mapes also is the recipient of a 2005 Peabody Award for a story in which she exposed the abuses prisoners were subjected to at Abu G'hraib detention center.

Drawn to journalism because "it's a front-row seat at life and history," Mapes said she resisted merging with "careerist" journalists, those "in for the career and not for the work," and refuses to be included in this "phantom limb" of the media, preferring to be involved in the "skeptical arm of democracy."

Hindsight has unaltered Mary Mape's notion of the story's veracity aired two months before the re-election of Bush.

"I love questioning authority," she said.

The story aired Sept. 8, 2004, as former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes said publicly that he helped get President Bush admitted into the National Guard.

Mapes said Barnes' first attempts to go public in 1999 were in vain and that "no one comes forth unless they are pissed off …"

Barnes was active in John Kerry's campaign for the presidency and had been involved in the Texas Sharpstown scandal as the lieutenant governor of Texas from 1971 to 1972, a story of corporation-favorable legislation, illicit corporation practices and tainted reputations.

Handwriting analysts, document experts and military officers assured Mapes of the documents' authenticity, she told journalists.

The author of a memo in question, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, described preferential treatment Bush may have received because of genealogy, but Killian has been dead since 1984.

In one of the contested memos, dated May 19, 1972, Killian allegedly wrote: "Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November … Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad."

A report commissioned by CBS to an independent panel concluded that the network had not followed its own reporting standards in compiling the story.

Mapes said one of the chairmen of the committee, Louis D. Boccardi, president and CEO of the Associated Press from 1984 to 2003, was a crony of the Bush family.

Warning of another McCarthyist epoch and a national ethos of "new, different, younger and prettier," Mapes spoke with reverence of Rather and said these two media characteristics compelled Rather to resign.

Journalists and anchors like Rather, with 45 years of cultivation and iconic stature, will be diminishing, Mapes predicts, especially when muckraking reports are postponed for entertainment, which is what transpired with her story "For the Record."

Although she preferred additional time to authenticate the story before airing, the only date available was Sept. 8, 2004, because of scheduling conflicts with a Billy Graham special and Dr. Phil show.
© Copyright 2007 The Ranger ... 555965049e
Osama bin Bush was/is royalty, so yes, he got preferential treatment! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yak.gif" alt="Yak" title="Yak" />

Posted By: anarchtype <Send E-Mail>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2007, 10:21 a.m.

it's nice to see that some members of the establishment class see what's going down are willing to speak up.



Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
By Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney


Had Enough?

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to—as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.

Who Are These Guys, Anyway?

Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them—or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.

And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.

Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?

The Test of a Leader

I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points—not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.

So, here's my C list: ... eadersgone

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Quote:Moyers Documentary
Blasts Bush Lies,
Media Complicity
By David Swanson

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq war to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge.

I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9:00 to 10:30 PM on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes will actually save you time because you'll never watch television news again - not even on PBS, which comes in for its own share of criticism.

While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.

It's great to see an American media outlet tell this story so well, but it leads one to ask: When will Congress tell it? While the Democrats were in the minority, they clamored for hearings and investigations, they pushed Resolutions of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group and the Downing Street Minutes. Now in the majority, they've gone largely silent. The chief exception is the House Judiciary Committee's effort to question Condoleezza Rice next week about the forged Niger documents.

But what comes out of watching this show is a powerful realization that no investigation is needed by Congress, just as no hidden information was needed for the media to get the story right in the first place. The claims that the White House made were not honest mistakes. But neither were they deceptions. They were transparent and laughably absurd falsehoods. And they were high crimes and misdemeanors.

The program opens with video of President Bush saying "Iraq is part of a war on terror. It's a country that trains terrorists. It's a country that can arm terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country."

Was that believable or did the media play along? The next shot is of a press conference at which Bush announces that he has a script telling him which reporters to call on and in what order. Yet the reporters play along, raising their hands after each comment, pretending that they might be called on despite the script.

Video shows Richard Perle claiming that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda and that Iraqis would greet American occupiers as liberators.

Here are the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, William Safire from The New York Times, Charles Krauthammer and Jim Hoagland from The Washington Post, all demanding an overthrow of Iraq's government. George Will is seen saying that Hussein "has anthrax, he loves biological weapons, he has terrorist training camps, including 747s to practice on."

But was that even plausible? Bob Simon of "60 Minutes" tells Moyers he wasn't buying it. He says he saw the idea of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda as an absurdity: "Saddam, as most tyrants, was a total control freak. He wanted total control of his regime. Total control of the country. And to introduce a wild card like al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant."

Knight Ridder Bureau Chief John Walcott didn't buy it either. He assigned Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay to do the reporting and they found the Bush claims to be quite apparently false. For example, when the Iraqi National Congress (INC) fed The New York Times's Judith Miller a story through an Iraqi defector claiming that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons labs under his house, Landay noticed that the source was a Kurd, making it very unlikely he would have learned such secrets. But Landay also noticed that it was absurd to imagine someone putting a biological weapons lab under his house.

But absurd announcements were the order of the day. A video clip shows a Fox anchor saying, "A former top Iraqi nuclear scientist tells Congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005." And the most fantastic stories of all were fed to David Rose at Vanity Fair Magazine. We see a clip of him saying, "The last training exercise was to blow up a full-size mock-up of a US destroyer in a lake in central Iraq."

Landay comments: "Or jumping into pits of fouled water and having to kill a dog with your bare teeth. I mean, this was coming from people who are appearing in all of these stories, and sometimes their rank would change."

Forged documents from Niger could not have gotten noticed in this stew of lies. Had there been some real documents honestly showing something, that might have stood out and caught more eyes. Walcott describes the way the INC would feed the same information to the vice president and secretary of defense that it fed to a reporter, and the reporter would then get the claims confirmed by calling the White House or the Pentagon. Landay adds: "And let's not forget how close these people were to this administration, which raises the question, was there coordination? I can't tell you that there was, but it sure looked like it."

Simon from "60 Minutes" tells Moyers that when the White House claimed a 9/11 hijacker had met with a representative of the Iraqi government in Prague, "60 Minutes" was easily able to make a few calls and find out that there was no evidence for the claim. "If we had combed Prague," he says, "and found out that there was absolutely no evidence for a meeting between Mohammad Atta and the Iraqi intelligence figure. If we knew that, you had to figure the administration knew it. And yet they were selling the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam."

Moyers questions a number of people about their awful work, including Dan Rather, Peter Beinart and then Chairman and CEO of CNN Walter Isaacson. And he questions Simon, who soft-pedaled the story and avoided reporting that there was no evidence.

Landay at Knight Ridder did report the facts when it counted, but not enough people paid attention. He tells Moyers that all he had to do was read the UN weapons inspectors' reports online to know that the White House was lying to us. When Cheney said that Hussein was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, Landay knew he was lying: "You need tens of thousands of machines called 'centrifuges' to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. You've got to house those in a fairly big place, and you've got to provide a huge amount of power to this facility."

Moyers also hits Tim Russert with a couple of tough questions. Russert expressed regret for not having included any skeptical voices by saying he wished his phone had rung. So Moyers begins the next segment by saying, "Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring," and describing Simon's reporting. Simon says he knew the claims about aluminum tubes were false because "60 Minutes" called up some scientists and researchers and asked them. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post says that skeptical stories did not get placed on the front page because they were not "definitive."

Moyers shows brief segments of an "Oprah" show in which she has on only pro-war guests and silences a caller who questions some of the White House claims. Just in time for the eternal election season, Moyers includes clips of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing the war on the basis of Bush and Cheney's lies. But we also see clips of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy getting it right.

The Washington Post editorialized in favor of the war 27 times, and published in 2002 about 1,000 articles and columns on the war. But the Post gave a huge anti-war march a total of 36 words. "What got even less ink," Moyers says, "was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate." Even the misleading partial version that the media received failed to fool a careful eye.

Landay recalls: "It said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out though, that the majority of intelligence analysts had no background in nuclear weapons." Was Landay the only one capable of noticing this detail?

Colin Powell's UN presentation comes in for similar quick debunking. We watch a video clip of Powell complaining that Iraq has covered a test-stand with a roof. But AP reporter Charles Hanley comments, "What he neglected to mention was that the inspectors were underneath watching what was going on."

Powell cited a UK paper, but it very quickly came out that the paper had been plagiarized from a college student's work found online. The British press pointed that out. The US let it slide. But anyone looking for the facts found it quickly.

Moyers's wonderful movie is marred by a single line - the next to the last sentence - in which he says, "The number of Iraqis killed, over 35,000 last year alone, is hard to pin down." A far more accurate figure could have been found very easily. ... yID=580455
Quote:Cheney was chief designer of the unraveling war

First published: Friday, April 13, 2007

Jim Scerra's March 29 letter lauding Vice President Dick Cheney's recent stand against those who oppose the war in Iraq evoked a mental image of a cheap suit of clothes that one just wants to pull on the loose threads and watch the thing fall to pieces.
According to the writer, Democrats with their "defeatist mentality," "mainstream media," Republicans who just "sit by and say nothing," liberal politicians and "the America-hating Hollywood crowd" are responsible for the tragic and costly failure that is the war in Iraq.

The writer needs to be reminded that it was not any of these fantasy entities that created "Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction," "Iraq's links and support of al Qaida," and other lies including "Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks." On the contrary, the leader whom the writer extols was one of the chief designers of this ragged ensemble cut out of whole cloth.

It is also worth mentioning that, last November, American voters made it abundantly clear that this nation wants and needs new directions and prioritizations in foreign policy and the war on terror. That this administration continues to pursue its failed course in Iraq shows that some people still fantasize that the emperors do indeed have new clothes.


Slingerlands ... 02082.html
Quote:April 13, 2007

War on Terror looks like a fraud

Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.

And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.

Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.

The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.

"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.

"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."

While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."

Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."

With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.

Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?
Quote:Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out! ... eadersgone

Applause Applause Applause Cheers
Bumper Stickers

> 1) 2004: Embarrassed 2005: Horrified 2006: Terrified
> 2) 1/20/09: End of an Error
> 3) That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
> 4) Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
> 5) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
> 6) Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
> 7) You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time
> 8) If You Can Read This, You're Not the President
> 9) Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
> 10) Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
> 11) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
> 12) Impeachment: It's Not Just for Sex Anymore
> 13) The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
> 14) America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
> 15) They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
> 16) Cheney/Satan '08
> 17) Jail to the Chief
> 18) No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
> 19) Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
> 20) Bad president! No Banana.
> 21) We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
> 22) We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
> 23) Is It Vietnam Yet?
> 24) Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
> 25) Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
> 26) You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
> 27) When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

>You voted for him, you go to hell with him!"
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" /> I loved every one of them!
Me, too! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Those are great, 2Loose!

What do I think of the job Idiot Boy is doing? I think he is doing a fine job implementing TPTB's agenda.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yak.gif" alt="Yak" title="Yak" />
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
blinking fucktard..
Pages: 1 2 3