I'm not sure but I think maybe i should vote for a democrat this year....and then Bush will still have one more term he is aloud to serve and he can be re-elected in 2008 so he can fix all the problems all the democrats and liberals will more than likely make this next term.

-xpress8

Uh...didn't Robert Clark just totally in ever way prove you wrong, swimem?

i hate bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said you could completly stop terrorism. But there are many ways to go about cutting it back and Clinton did not persue any of those means.

Swimem, my quote means nothing without the rest of it. There's no big switch that say "GO AFTER TERRORISM" There's country somehwhere out there in Asia called "TERRORISMSTAN." Expecting a President to "stop Terrorism" is like expecting a President to stop organized crime or rape. Terrorism is just crime with a message, it's not some special force that comes from space.

Superdave: Ever hear of a little thing called "Godwin's Law?" No? It goes like this: The second you call your opposition essentially "Nazis" or "Hitler", you automatically lose an argument and/or credibility.

Anyway, you're wrong. Hitler used multi-lateralism and diplomacy to further his agenda. Hitler allied with people, and he used people's fears of another major war to gain more land via appeasement. That's far from what the Bush administration has done.

apparently none of you f.ucking morons have heared of paul wolfowitz. he wrote a document, that bush adopted, which basicaly says that there is no room for multi-lateral attempts at peace. he also said that america should be the only superpower and should have the right to do as it sees fit. if i'm not mistaken the last person to say that was hitler.

quote:

---

Clinton did move against "the Terrorists" in the first WTC bombing...people were arrested and tried...you see, there is no nation-state to "go after" for Terrorism.

---

Obviously, Clinton's strategy did nothing. And believe me, I would know because that's all I heard from my daddy after all this crap came out that Bush shouldn't be attacking. (He was in the Army Special Forces AntiTerrorism unit for 20 years fyi.)Clinton, after a delibrate act of terrorism, downgraded the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He said it was an act of domestic terrorism and tried a guy in court. That may sound good but it did absolutly nothing to stop any organization from attacking us many more times.

Clinton did move against "the Terrorists" in the first WTC bombing...people were arrested and tried...you see, there is no nation-state to "go after" for Terrorism. You can only say, like Bush, that know you're "going after the Terrorists," and people like you will rally behind him. In reality, there is only intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.

Oh, and by the way, in May 2003, TEXAN terrorists were found with FAKE PENTAGON IDs, thousands of rounds of ammunitions, and deadly chemical weapons. Was it reported outside the area? Naaaahhh. Let's just be quiet about that. I mean, they're good, God-fearing Christians, right?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

The Bush lesson: Only go against terrorists you can turn into a vague, faceless, inhumane evil mass.

quote:

---

But I have to agree, when clinton was in office, aside from natural causes, noone died.

---

Wow, I guess Kosovo, Bosnia, guerilla warfare in South America, the first WTC bombing, US embassies in Africa, all that never happend. Because no one died of course.

quote:

---

I honestly dont think Clinton has the heart to retaliate when another country initializes war on the U.S. But can you honestly take that against him.

---

Yeah, I can blame him. Because if Clinton had moved against the terrorist after the first WTC bombing and the bombings of the US embassaies in Africa then 11 Sept would never have happened.

CLINTON BUMPERSTICKER:
Whether or not someone really had a bumpersticker that read that ,I dont know. But I have to agree, when clinton was in office, aside from natural causes, noone died. And thank god he wasnt in office when 9/11 happened, or the entire U.S. would be in pieces, because when the terrorists attacked us, and Clinton sat on his hands and did nothing, then what do you think the terrorists would have done. THEY WOULD HAVE ATTACKED US AGAIN!!!!!! I honestly dont think Clinton has the heart to retaliate when another country initializes war on the U.S. But can you honestly take that against him. It would take alot to give an order that would involve human sacrifice. The fact is that order needed to be given, and by someone who could give it and follow through with it. And I think that its a great thing that person came along. I have said it in earlier posts and I will say it again: President Bush is the best president America has had in a while, and I hope he is the president for the next four years, and after him someone else who would have the heart the heart to stand up for his country and its people. GO PRESIDENT BUSH 2000-2008?!!!!!!!!!!!

All Democrats have no chance! Bush 2004.

Whatever. I'm getting sick of arguing now. My point was Bush isn't a good President. *sigh* Politics suck and world is going to hell. Well, it would if there was a hell. I just use that as an expression. Enjoy your peace bashing everyone. Ta ta!

Most of America was against the war? That is entirely incorrect: Going into the war, the public supported it by more than a 2:1 margin. The support for the war drove the 2002 elections, which were nearly unprecendented in handing a GOP president a GOP Congress, and deserves to again, and hopefully will. The point is, President Bush was doing exactly what the American people wanted! And, even with all that's happened in Iraq, the public still supports the war by nearly 2:1. And there wasn't a fraction of the number of demonstrations and participants you claim.

By the way Joey, don't you dare tell me whether I should or should not vote.

"Either you agree or you disagree. Either an American or a Communist."

Shut up, Joey.

Do you live in America JoeyDauben? Did you watch the news during the war? Hardly anyone was behind Bush! Most (I'm not saying all) of the U.S. wasn't and the U.N. told him they wouldn't support it either. Millions of people demonstrated against the war every day. Don't you care whether the President of the United States is concerned about the interests of his own people? Bush is not President of the world. It's not that I don't care about people in other countries, I really do. But going to war the way he did was stupid.

StormFaerie if you live in America, you should not vote in any election.

I base this, of course, on your outrageous "we didn't have support from the UN" garbage.

Get a clue would ya?


And as far as that Clinton-death thing, all of you need to Google the "Clinton body count" and look into the NATO occupation of Bosnia.

He said our men would be there for a year, and guess what, politicians lie.

So don't tell me people didn't die under Clinton (if it was a bumper sticker or not).

http://www.garynolan.com

I think Bush is a bad president. But personal opinion aside, I don't think he'll get re-elected anyway unless he finds weapons of mass destruction (which he won't) or if he finds Osama Bin Laden (This is a possibility. We are still looking for him right?). The majority of the country isn't happy with him.

Now, out of curiosity: How many of you will be able to vote for our next president? I will. Ha ha ha ha (18 in April)!