Originally Posted by Tileman

I said-




smartmakesacomback replies with-




Apparently, ignorantcomback needs a thesaurus to decipher what the hell I said, because he's clueless to how badly his ass was handed to him as evidenced by his previous posts on the prior page.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

There is no such thing as "Bush bashing"

There is only the consensus of objective educated people that he is an inept and failed President

The fact that he is a traitor, a lair, a coward an untreated drug addict and a bumbling dunderhead with no command of simple english, are side issues

Originally Posted by steve k

Illegal wire-tapping, eh? That's what your going to hang your hat on? Who was tortured by the way that hasn't been tried and convicted where necessary. Give me dates and specific examples. And as far as the war goes, I agree with you on the basis that had I known the way it would have been fought until the surge I would have never have supported it. However, since the surge despite what you would like to have everyone else believe there has been progress. It always amazes me that people like yourself are more interested in the "rights" of those trying to kill your brothers and sisters fighting in distant lands than you are in American lives.Who know? Maybe that makes you a better person than me.

Originally Posted by Commissioner

You're right on it not making any sense. But it sure doesn't make a lot of sense why someone would go to all the hassle of becoming president and then risk everything including your legacy in history because one day you get a bug up your ass and the arrogance takes over. The fact is, the reasons I cited previously are BS. Yeah, it is about oil, which may have been reason enough when you consider the consequences of access to that oil being interrupted by wackjob zealots.

Hassle of becoming President? It's called inflated ego, which would explain his arrogance. And he risked nothing. Who was going to come up against him really? The republicans gave this administration a free ride, right up until the 2006 elections. Not even the democrats stood up to him at first for fear of committing political suicide and being labeled coward/weak on security/traitors.

Has it occurred to you that those wackjob zealots (Iran for instance) might not have reacted the way they did if Bush hadn't of given his infamous "axis of evil" speech. And none of the people he cited had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.

I'm guessing arrogance ain't it at all. Instead, the reason we're in Iraq is because Bush and his people decided this was as good a place as any to start standing up to the terrorists, and that once freed of Saddam the Iraqi "people" would provide a good base from which to fight this war.

Why not start and FINISH it where the terrorists responsible for attacking the US are in the greatest number, or have you forgotton Afghanistan also.

BTW- it might convince more people that you are actually interested in fighting a war on terror/terrorists, if you bother to protect your borders/ports FIRST.

I ain't saying they went about things the right way. Maybe there was a better way to dump Saddam; get a sane government working somewhere in the mideast; and protect the access to the oil thereby preventing a worldwide economic meltdown.

Again, sorry, without a motive just putting the blame on "Bush and his cronies" demonstrates a clear-cut idealogical bent on your part...but it doesn't make much sense either. But don't worry, not being able to come up with a reason for all this doesn't make you any different than the other people whose posts are slanted more towards politics than making any sense.

Originally Posted by Amazed

Wrong. The Geneva Convention clearly states who qualifies, and who doesn't. They don't..now..this also shows youen't READ the GC..you do know that it states that ALL Prisoners can be held until the cessation of hostilities??

Originally Posted by freedomlover1

I have read all the man's EO's, watched him continually try to justify himself. I have seen his smirk of "I am the decider". I have paid attention to both his attitudes and his actions. It may be an idealogical bent. But I don't think that I am that too far off.

Originally Posted by Commissioner

With regards to the "objective educated people" I believe SMAC is referring to Reverend Wright, Louie Farakahn, Rosie O'Donnell, Maxine Waters, Phil Donahue and, the most objective of all, Keith Obermann.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Well, you have most of the names that right wing talk show hosts have told right wing simpletons to fear....I see you are a loyal listener !

Actually, I was refuring to the roughty 70% of the American popukation who in pole after pole, agree that Bush is a failed President with failed policies