The Independent: ‘The end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.’
The Independent: ‘The end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.’
On the heels of President Bush’s farewell tour of Europe, the Independent (UK) issued a scathing editorial today reflecting on his visit and presidency:
[P]erhaps Mr Bush’s most significant legacy, as far as Britain is concerned, will be the destruction of the instinctive trust of America and its leaders that once prevailed here. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr Bush has done more damage to relations between our two nations than any president in living memory. This rupture is not an accident of circumstance; there are no impersonal forces of history to blame. This sorry state of affairs is the consequence of the actions of a single leader and his small coterie of advisers. [...]
And whatever the future holds for transatlantic relations, there will be very few in this country who watched President Bush’s plane depart yesterday without a feeling of profound relief that the end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Independent was too kind!
June 17th, 2008 at 11:15 ama feeling of profound relief that the end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.
Truer words have never been spoken, my friends from across the “pond”.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am…..there will be very few in this country who watched President Bush’s plane depart yesterday without a feeling of profound relief that the end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.
And there will be less than 23% of the people of this country that will not have that same feeling of relief. The difference is, ALL of us are left to clean the sh!t stains off the Constitution and the walls of the WH.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:15 amSpeaking of disasters, I noticed that this morning Bush said that the very FIRST thing he’ll be doing is toto try to figure out where MORE midwest flooding may occur.
Yer doin’ a great job, Bushie!
June 17th, 2008 at 11:16 amFor any Brits reading the blog this morning, we whole heartedly agree!
Most Americans find it hard to believe themselves…8 years of bullheaded, profit oriented, lying bastards protecting their corporate inner circle to amass untold billions in wealth at the expense of poor & sick women & children.
Let me be the first to say we regret our ‘choice’, as well. President Obama will due his utmost to level the playing field in World politics. We’ve got a lot of hard work ahead of us, but the NeoCon plan to rule the World is being aborted.
Thanks for your support & patience all these years, Britain.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:17 amLet’s see …. when informed of the WTC disaster, he took 7 minutes of mute confusion to even react, during the Kratina disaster, he was “too busy” playing cowboy in Crawford and San Diego to react for 4 days, now he was ‘too busy’ getting his faux praise from the Europeans during a 500 year flood in the US heartland to come home and help.
At least he is a consistent AssKlown, I will have to give him that. Shows his complete and utter lack of interest in the people of this country.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:20 amwatched President Bush’s plane depart
You are so fortunate, Brits.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am“It is no exaggeration to say that Mr Bush has done more damage to relations between our two nations than any president in living memory.”
I’d also add “more damage to relations between our two political parties than any president in living memory.”
I look forward to January 2009; let the healing begin.
PEACE
June 17th, 2008 at 11:25 amIf that’s the way people feel about Bush in England,an old ally, I wonder how people of Iraq,Korea, Iran and many other countries feel about Bush? !!
June 17th, 2008 at 11:27 amAt least these countries now feeling some relief knowing that in few months Bush will no longer be in charge.
PLC,
Yeah, they got to watch him leave for hopefully the last time and WE paid for his flight…
I won’t be happy until I see that man in the Hague, or get his just desserts some other way.
To be clear, Secret Service, I am in no way advocating violence against the President of the United States, no matter how much the current man in that position is NOT our President by right, does not represent us, no matter how much he might deserve it (the violence). I am not like GWB, I don’t shoot first and ask questions never.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:27 amThe problem is, we in America still have to contend with him. His doofus reply about slandering America to those who question what was going on in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo was another in a long series of low points from which we’ll have to dig out.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:29 amWhile The Bush Not Welcome group cheers on with their T-Shirts of Bush, with Psycho as a caption, on. I feel truly bad that they had to put up Bush & Laura being in town. Blocking off traffic and making it a nightmare for average Brits to get around town. It just added to their dislike of our President and his criminal behavior.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:36 amWe the people really dropped the ball when we heard bull shit bush was taking a world tour….What we should of done is raise fund’s, sent out letter’s to all the countries he was to viset and sold him to any buyer…The add could of read…For Sale cheap one brush cutter..Previous experiance none…Must be fed, housed and kept in captivety forever……Blessings
June 17th, 2008 at 11:36 amSome of GWB’s policies have been ill conceived and the first few years of the Iraq war were poorly executed. He’s not a brilliant tactician by any means. Additionally, his (non) enforcement of the US border was indeed a disaster. However, his presidency is far from a disaster considering that he has achieved 100% success in preventing another “911″ attack on US soil. The fact is that he has protected us, and that’s his main priority. The rest is just partisan preference. Please refrain from attacking me personally for expressing my views, as doing so may constitute harassment which violates TP’s TOS.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:37 amBush may be the least popular President in history. But, the issues of balance between security and liberty that seems to be his most offensive quality, also seem to be at issue in the U.K. and at the independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/abu-qatada-to-be-released-on-bail-848916.html
If you look at the front page of the independent today, those responsible for security of Brits lament the bailed offered to Abu Qatada “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”.
Despite the relative calm in domestic terror events, I believe there is a difficult balance between protecting the liberty of the individuals and protecting our societies from terror attacks.
Bush may have done a poor job convincing people that his policies where necessary. He has also been too heavy handed. But, I don’t believe the issue is as clear cut as some seem to think.
We’re having to answer difficult questions about the limits of government – but it seems (from the front page of the independent) that we are not the only ones.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:39 amHmmmm, a Troll claiming ‘protection’ under TP’s TOS.
Nice.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:41 amgunclinger, two words: ANTHRAX MAILINGS.
Have we arrested ANYONE for those yet?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:41 amAhmen brother!
June 17th, 2008 at 11:44 amGunclinger – the main job of the president is to uphold the Constitution – which this jerk of a president has failed to do. I do not buy the argument that he has kept us ’safe.’ Just because there have been no attacks, doesn’t mean the capability of those who might perpetrate them has diminished. On the contrary, McBushie has created so many more problems and used the War on Terra as a recruiting tool for those who want to do another 9-11. I was here in New York when that happened, and I fault Bush for paying NO ATTENTION at all to the developments that led up to it. This Bozo has a LOT to answer for.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:44 amBush models heavy handed, “my way or the highway” leadership. That might get temporary compliance, but not much else. The problem is this pathological leader has control over the world’s mightiest military for seven more months.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:44 amtarazan Says
June 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
If that’s the way people feel about Bush in England,an old ally, I wonder how people of Iraq,Korea, Iran and many other countries feel about Bush? !!
____________________________________________
I suspect that our enemies have been taking secret delight in the Bush presidency, because Bush and Cheney have been destroying our country, our freedoms, our economy, and our way of life far more effectively than our enemies could have ever dreamed of.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:45 amDo we really have to let Bush back in?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:48 amCan’t they have him visit Antarctica for say, six months or so?
Frankly, Europe, we wish he had stayed longer, maybe until January or so We are all so tired of his incompetence, arrogance, clownish behavior, that we cannot wait until he retires to Crawford. He has done great harm to our beloved country. It will take us years to clean up his mess.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:48 amROFLAO…..The reich winger’s can be funny to read and watch…..Look at their idol’s…..To bad they have done so much damage to the country along with their funny stunt’s…Guess the fact that 9/11 happened on their watch and they knew in advance still doe’s not count…Jeebos H crispie critter….That’s what they have done to the world…Blessings and no free passes to troll’s
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 amBush IS the enemy. Name one person in history that has done more damage to the principles of America than that shit flinging punk?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:50 amOnly 216 more days! What say we all pitch in and buy him a one-way ticket to The Hague for a little going away prezzie? Or a ” Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out” giftie?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:54 amI found the perfect wat to prevent criminals from breaking into mu house. I put all my valuables on the front lawn where they bad guys can get to them.
Why would a terrorist need to attack the USA? Bush has conveniently placed our mst valuable resources in their back yard. And sure enough, thanks to Bush, we are several thousand soldiers fewer now.
Bush has the blood of innocents on his hands, up to his armpits.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:56 amtarazan Says
If that’s the way people feel about Bush in England,an old ally, I wonder how people of Iraq,Korea, Iran and many other countries feel about Bush? !!
Probably how you would feel watching a 800 pound rabid dog roam your neighborhood.
The world has never suffered an oppressive hegemony for long. Just as people never suffered from an oppressive ruler without eventually revolting.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:57 amSorry for the typos, too pissed this morning to check spelling.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:58 amgunclinger Says:
Bwahahahahahahahaha
funny joke
June 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pmYou were joking right?
If I’m lucky I will have another birthday in October…..My wish this year is to see all this administration in hand cuff’s and leg iron’s being loaded on a plane headed for any obscure prison to serve forever…Blessings
June 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pmAnd if McSame is elected . . . it is the end of America.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pmLet’s step back a little bit. If the damage your talking about is the result of the war in Iraq, it might be fair to point out the the leader of the U.K. at the time was in lock step with the President.
If it was a mistake, maybe it would be more correct to recognize that it was the consequence of not only Bush, but Blair and his british advisors.
How do you pin strained relations on Bush, when Blair and company were in agreement at every step?
June 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pmThey hate us for our freedoms? Bush has been busily divesting us of those inconvenient freedoms for the last 6 years. Bush has more to answer for than Osama does.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pmbackup Says:
Let’s step back a little bit. If the damage your talking about is the result of the war in Iraq, it might be fair to point out the the leader of the U.K. at the time was in lock step with the President.
If Blair and company participated in the renditions, torture, indefinite imprisonment and other war crimes, then yes, they are just as guilty.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pmbackup Says:
Let’s step back a little bit. If the damage your talking about is the result of the war in Iraq, it might be fair to point out the the leader of the U.K. at the time was in lock step with the President.
If it was a mistake, maybe it would be more correct to recognize that it was the consequence of not only Bush, but Blair and his british advisors.
How do you pin strained relations on Bush, when Blair and company were in agreement at every step?
If Cheney and Bush hadn’t launched a completely unnecessary war, there wouldn’t have been anything for Blair to agree on, would there?
I know you “conservatives” aren’t big on accountability, so this is typical. “Hey, what about that guy? He agreed with us, so he’s just as much to blame.”
June 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pmAnd whatever the future holds for transatlantic relations, there will be very few in this country who watched President Bush’s plane depart yesterday without a feeling of profound relief that the end of this disastrous presidency is finally in sight.
I wish we could say the same, the Iraqis as well.
It’s going to be a long time, if ever, to undo the damage King George has done to this country and the world.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pmGood one gunclinger! Have another cup of the koolaid, on me! You earned it with that one!
Funniest post I’ve read all day! (you were joking, right?)
Can someone in the D.C. area get a locksmith over to the White House ASAP and change the effing locks?!
June 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pmSo what you’re saying is that it was appropriate for Blair to support Bush at the time (hinting that it may have seemed like a good idea), but now, in the light of hindsight and decreasing popularity, it’s appropriate to pretend that somehow, Brits knew it was a bad idea all along and that Bush is responsible for the strained relations.
Again, if the people that Brits elect as their leader partner with Bush, who believed, as Bush did, in the cause – and supported it wholeheartedly; how do you pin the strained relations on Bush alone?
Are Brits unaccountable for the leaders they elect? Are they unaccountable for who they support?
Both men thought it was a good idea at the time. In hindsight, the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But, just because you wish it wouldn’t have happened, doesn’t give you discretion to pretend that you didn’t support it when it seemed like a good idea.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pmWell, at least they feel the same way we do.
And our little ignorant nut hugging Trolls are told that Bush is their God, and the idiots believe it.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pmBackup
June 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pmThe reason the British people are upset is that Bush betrayed a trust which existed at least since WW I between the two countries. Blair did not totally agree with Bush, but he felt obligated to support the US, and he did feel it was politically expedient as well. Lets not let Blair off easily either.
How do you pin strained relations on Bush, when Blair and company were in agreement at every step?
There must be a leader during the dance and Bush was the leader – an incompetent leader, but still the leader. You do not scrape the tarnish off bush by suggesting others accepted his insane ideas of a neocon fantasy. Someone (cheney, rice, addington, bolton, rumsfeld, etc) had to sell the lies and catapult the propoganda. In turn, someone had to accept the lies and further move them down the road. All are to blame, but there is one group who shall take most of the blame and that is Bush and his cronys.
BTW, England is having a very good dicussion now about government over-reach. It seems they may have created too much a fascist state for the good of the people. Maybe we should have the same conversation?
June 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pmThe Dingleberry can’t even make a basket, let alone be a president.
He was shooting so many bricks, construction workers collected them and are building a house so his mamma has a place to live.
Thank you Ron Shelton.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm.
The W(orst EVER and yet somehow good enough to remain…
.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pmbackup Says:
So what you’re saying is that it was appropriate for Blair to support Bush at the time (hinting that it may have seemed like a good idea), but now, in the light of hindsight and decreasing popularity, it’s appropriate to pretend that somehow, Brits knew it was a bad idea all along and that Bush is responsible for the strained relations.
I’m not saying anything of the kind, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. I never suggested at all that is was appropriate to support the invasion of Iraq. Nor, in fact, did the British, regardless of what Tony Blair wanted.
The British don’t elect their prime minister, by the way. You may want to expand your understanding of how parliamentary government works. And Blair came into office after the Labor Party won in 1997, which is a few years before the invasion of Iraq. Under the circumstances, it’s tough (or butt-ignorant) to blame the British for his man-love for Bush.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pmStratRat. I agree with you here. Liberty is more important than we have been treating it lately. There is a balance between security and liberty, and we have focused too much on security. Sacrifice in liberty isn’t worth the price we’ve paid. But, we should recognize that it is a trade off.
Maybe it’s right to release “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe” on bail. To promote not only his liberty, but more importantly our collective commitment to liberty. It is that important. But, we leave the potential that we are exposing innocent civilians to more risk of attack. I believe that’s the reality. I believe it is a trade off and a choice.
But, I also believe, continually sacrificing liberty for security, may make us safer in a world I’m less comfortable living in.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pmgummitch. Are you trying to convince me that the British aren’t responsible for their leaders?
If it was Bush’s leadership into Iraq that has caused strained relations, why do we ignore Blair’s support?
To be honest, it seems a cop out.
In hindsight the war was a mistake. A mistake that Bush and Blair supported at the time.
Blaming Bush alone for strained relations is disingenuous and revisionist history.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pmI’m not saying that Blair’s support validates Bush. But, I am responding to this charge by the Independent:
June 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Independent columnist and environmental activist George Monbiot attempted unsuccessfully to perform a citizens’ arrest against John Bolton about two weeks ago in Wales for war crimes. If only there were citizens in the UK who could have attempted to have done the same thing to Bush.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pmbackup Says:
gummitch. Are you trying to convince me that the British aren’t responsible for their leaders?
Given your proven inability to learn anything, why would I bother to try to convince you of anything?
For those paying attention, the invasion was a mistake that did not require hindsight. Most of Europe was opposed from the beginning, and the Brits didn’t require much “hindsight” to join them.
You keep projecting your own opinions on everyone else with this constant assertion that “everyone thought it was a good idea at the time.” Bullpuckey.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pmpoopflinger says – harassment which violates TP’s TOS.
Fcuk off, idiot.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pmBackup, do you believe in this statement, yes or no:
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” B. Franklin
June 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pmbackup Says:
Both men thought it was a good idea at the time. In hindsight, the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But, just because you wish it wouldn’t have happened, doesn’t give you discretion to pretend that you didn’t support it when it seemed like a good idea.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
______
The British should know better than anyone else (except perhaps the Ottomans), about the dangers of invading and occupying Mesopotamia. The British invented Iraq as a coaling station in the 1920s, and were unable to occupy it for very long. Blair had the opportunity to be the voice of reason standing up to Bush’s march to an unnecessary war, and he didn’t. In fact, he participated in the lies and criminal deceit that led us into the war.
The war in Iraq was not just a bad idea in hindsight, but also in foresight, and Blair should have known better. His turnaround from the New Labour champion of the late 1990’s to Bush’s lapdog in the 2000’s will go down as one of the most tragic dark eras in British history.
Yes, the British people are responsible for reelecting this man several times, just as we are responsble for reelecting Bush. It still doesn’t make the prewar lies come true.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:07 pmbush doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He just flat doesn’t care, period. He’s a sociopath of the first order. He enjoys laughing at other’s misfortunes, he ignores the grief-stricken families of soldiers who have been murdered in Iraq, as well as the families of New Orleans, the midwest, and other parts of America. He cares nothing for no one.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:07 pmMy only hope is that he is tried and convicted for war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors, treason, and anything else he is guilty of, such as pretending to be a human being.
Take his money away and put him away in solitary for the rest of his miserable existence. He and cheney both. Out of sight, out of mind, with any kind of good luck.
Now, I’ll tell you how I really feel about the slug infecting the White House.
backup Says:
But, I also believe, continually sacrificing liberty for security, may make us safer in a world I’m less comfortable living in.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
______
It’s really quite sad that you’d rather live in a fascist world than a free one.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pmDon’t be so sure the end of the tunnel is in sight. It may just be the light from an interrogation room.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pmThe charge attempts to deny responsibility for anyone that initially supported the war, except Bush and company.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
The wars decreasing popularity has not only reduced today’s support for the war, but also increased the ranks of those that were opposed to it, to begin with.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Yes, the British people are responsible for reelecting this man several times, just as we are responsble for reelecting Bush. It still doesn’t make the prewar lies come true.
To be fair, the British never elected or re-elected Blair. That’s not how it works. And he was PM because of victories in three elections: 1997, 2001 and 2005. Only the last election happened after the Iraq invasion, and within a year he announced that he was stepping down.
And, sorry, but I take no responsibility for the re-election of Bush. I didn’t vote for him and actively worked against him twice.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pmbackup said:
Are Brits unaccountable for the leaders they elect? Are they unaccountable for who they support?
Responsibility isn’t a black and white issue nor is it a zero sum game. The Brits are indeed responsible for their own leaders and what they choose to believe. But that doesn’t change the fact that Bush started the whole thing as well as putting the pressure on our allies like the British to go along with it.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pmbackup Says:
The wars decreasing popularity has not only reduced today’s support for the war, but also increased the ranks of those that were opposed to it, to begin with.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
_____
The popularity of a war is in no way proportional to its legality or necessity. Even if the war had been a resounding success and enjoyed massive popularity today and Baghdad were bustling with water parks and luxury hotels and oil was selling at $20/barrel, it still would have been an illegal and unnecessary war based on a pack of lies.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pmBarbara Bush once took a dump. Raised the turd and called George Walker Bush.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pmPaul W. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
But, how meaningful is support, if when, things start to go badly or become unpopular, you can simply deny you supported something to begin with.
You can argue that Bush lied us into war. If that’s the case, bring the evidence forward and impeach (and jail) him for it.
If you are unwilling or unable to prove it was Bush deceit that garnered the support, those that supported the effort should stand by their decision to support it and not conveniently blame it away on someone else.
Bush is responsible for the invasion. But Blair was on board. There were a couple of dozen other country’s that went along. A majority of the American people and the congressional war resolution.
I’m not arguing that the war is a success. It was a mistake. But, I am challenging the notion put forth by the Independent:
It’s convenient, but disingenuous.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pmbackup Says:
I’m not arguing that the war is a success. It was a mistake. But, I am challenging the notion put forth by the Independent:
This sorry state of affairs is the consequence of the actions of a single leader and his small coterie of advisers. […]
It’s convenient, but disingenuous.
The invasion was the direct result of a long-planned effort by the administration including not only outright lies but a wide-ranging propaganda effort. Support for the invasion was created by those efforts; people who later learned of the deception as certainly justified in turning against the occupation.
Your unwillingness to accept that this was deliberate deceit on the part of the Bush administration should not be projected on other people. A majority of Americans and a long-standing majority of Europeans have been aware of this for some time.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pmtoasterhead. I think I didn’t do a good job of communicating it. I am agreeing that we have sacrificed too much liberty in the name of security. I assume you feel the same.
I agreed with StratRat when he offered this:
On this issue, I’ve come to support the progressive stance of restraining the governments efforts to promote security to the significant detriment of personal liberty.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pmAmen to the Independent! I could not have said it better myself.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pmThe turd GWBUsh grew up. Gave up alcohol to become a war criminal. As a war criminal he still “boozes it up”!
June 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pmbackup Says:
toasterhead. I think I didn’t do a good job of communicating it. I am agreeing that we have sacrificed too much liberty in the name of security. I assume you feel the same.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
______
Ok, fair enough – I can see how the entire meaning of your sentence changes depending on which words you accent. My apologies for misinterpreting.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pmI wonder if he was actually invited to any of the countries he visited. Life for the citizens of cities he visits basically gets tied up in knots whenever he visits with his massive security bubble. In Rome, his people expected massive demonstrations, so they shut down parts of the city. Thousands of extra police that the Roman population has to pay for, plus the disruption of daily business. Italians have lost interest in this lame duck. They aren’t even protesting much anymore. He’ll be gone soon.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pmSo why do they keep electing that fascist Berlusconi, though? He looks more like Mussolini every day.
Backup,
You never answered my question at #54.
Did you miss it or just ignoring it?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” B. Franklin
upside. I wasn’t trying to ignore you. Yes, I agree with Franklin and you.
I’ve come around to a better understanding that the price we are paying for security has a very high cost. Liberty.
I think many people expect the President to keep us safe. I think that Bush has focused on that expectation in his efforts to prevent future terrorism, but, to the detriment of liberty.
In large part due to the exchanges here, I believe that the pendulum swing to security has reached its apogee. I want free citizens to be safe. But, what seems more relevant today, is that we ensure they be free.
I wasn’t ignoring you. you make a good point.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pmI would tie this idiot to a truck. Have him chained to a truck and drag him all over the Mojave desert! Make tumbleweed out of the idiot.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pmRegardless, you gotta love that photo!!
June 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pmBackup,
I respect your attitude and your responding.
If more people would see what we are talking about and think of it in the bigger picture, we would not be in many of the situations we are in now.
I do appreciate when there is true discourse here.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pmupside99, in principle I agree with you. Bush has misplaced priorities. However, once he get to Iowa and the flooded areas he will just be a hindrance with his entourage and political stunts. We would be better off if he just sent condolences.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pmgunclinger, get real. Bush has only unleashed the bloated Dept. of Homeland Security on the U.S. You and Ann Coulter say the same illogical thing..”fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here…” How silly to think that we have any say or any understanding in the terrorist’s time frames.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmWe can only measure in our own terms of “here and now”, instant everything. The terrorist know well that the best plan is to get our forces deeply committed in the Middle East, far from home. Stress us out for whatever time frame – 10, 20, 30 years – or attack the U.S. tomorrow. Time means nothing to zealots.
AmandaBlows,
June 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmYou can stop pretending to post as a progressive.
Take you faux outrage and anger diatribe over to any right wing blog where it will be appreciated.
Amandablow, please be more civil. Name calling, while it escapes from all of us occasionally, is juvenile and unproductive.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pmJune 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
gunclinger Says:
his presidency is far from a disaster considering that he has achieved 100% success in preventing another “911? attack on US soil. The fact is that he has protected us, and that’s his main priority. The rest is just partisan preference.
You can’t actually BELIEVE that nonsense. You show zero logic.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pmDo you want to give Shrub credit for us not being hit by a meteor also?
Why is it that you think Bush gets credit for us not being attacked after 9-11 , yet you don’t have him bear any responsibility for the 9/11 attack when the warnings were so urgent that his Attorney General stopped taking domestic airlines flights in July 2001, while Shrub was happily riding his bike and cutting brush on his 5 week vacation, brushing off the CIA report with “OK you”ve covered your ass now”.
George W. Bush will leave a legacy that reads:
King of the Thugs.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm