yes- there are a lot of people who want SS to be reformed but, Bush's plan is a disaster. He should just stick with being the lame duck president he has become.

Americans are Smarter Than Democrats, Liberals

Mark

I don't get it. Are you saying that if you are a Democrat or Liberal you are not an American? That the only true Americans are Religious Right-wing Republicans? What's up with that?

To the editors and the readers,
Please forgive the circutiuous route I take to come to my point. But I believe it speaks directly to why the American people simply will not trust Bush with SS.
Thank you for time and patience.

Conservatism, Yes
Bush, No

All this shows is that Bush has managed to convince the American people that they don't have to pay for anything. Bush is not a conservative.
He is a theological liberal, dedicated to building a spendthrift government devoid of any ambition or ability other than to line its own pockets. But he is serving his faith. God is on his side so that makes it alright.
Halliburton gets rich while the troops have to buy their own body armor, and money for reconstruction in Iraq gets lost by the billions, along with our credibility in the world.
If we had a Harry S. Truman running a defense appropriations committee, perhaps some of this money could be taken away from contractors ripping us off to the tunes of billions and put back in the hands of military so we can that most precious and effective of weapons:Well trained troops under the direct command of the US military. Not some shadowy contractor whose role or effectiveness ever seems to be an issue because they aren't under anyones control. And they never complain as long as they get paid.
Peter Schoomaker, the Armies top General said that the army "will break" without thousands more serving. It costs the army aprox. 1.2 billion to increase its force by 10,000 men. Let's take the money and invest where it needs to go. Increase our forces in Iraq, as Sylvestre Reyes, incoming Chairman of the intelligence committee suggests.(According to the Jeff Stein CQ article.) However, any streamling of the military that included the huge chunk devoted to high paid, no bid contracts approved by the Bush administration, would get nowhere.
The same would happen under Bush with SS, and that's why popular sentiment turned against him on this issue in 2005. Bush has proven that government under his direction is horribly ineffecient, and many times simply doesn't work, except for his well connected friends. Bush plan to privatize SS would lead to a few people making alot of money at the expense of alot of others.
While I agree the current system of those working paying to add to the income of senior citizens annnot be sustained indefinitly, its going to take a real conservative, someone whose concerned about making sure that those who invest in the system, get as good a rate of return on their money as can be arranged using the power of the government to regulate such arrangements, to make this work.
Bush is not a conservative. He is not the person to make a go of this.
Look forward to your responses.

The need to fix Social Security has nothing to do with Republican attempts to sell it off to Wall Street.

Americans rejected wholly Bush's remedy not wanting to be "liberated" from guaranteed retirement security.

After such a stunning election rebuke of Bush and some conservative principles your continued delusion that "Americans" desire more is truly remarkable. Minimum wage laws which come from a liberal world view won in many states while anti-abortion measures failed.

Keep trying to sell right-wing extremist viewpoints and you will continue to lose political power.

Wade

My response, JAT, is that you gave us yet another talking-point rant. We've seen it all before.

BTW, dipspit, I know some GIs who were in Iraq. One is a neighbor and a friend. Halliburton is making a very small profit in Iraq.

BTW again, dipspit, what about the no-bids to Halliburton during the Clinton administration?

And why preface your stupid post with a disclaimer? It sounded like something a seminar caller would say on a radio talk show.

I just read your post again--it's loaded with more bullcrap than a fertilizer factory. Just because your party thinks all Americans are stupid doesn't make it so. However, you support your party because you are stupid.

*Sighs*

Polls polls, and more polls. Oi... isn't there a better way to figure out what the people want? I wish we could vote every time the government wants to raise or lower our taxes, but we live in a representative government so that's not happening. *Shrugs*

yes- there are a lot of people who want SS to be reformed but, Bush's plan is a disaster. He should just stick with being the lame duck president he has become.

Why is it a disaster Jackie? Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. In fact, if you understood his plan, you'd see it make a lot of sense.

"The same would happen under Bush with SS, and that's why popular sentiment turned against him on this issue in 2005." Blah...blah...blah...puke.

I'm with keefer! This absurdity of always blaming Bush is getting on my nerves.

The libs often decry that GH Bush won an incredible military victory during the first gulf war, but they forget that we did not go all the way to Baghdad either. So, forget about the past, forget about pulling out, screw the polls because as expected, GW will do what his advisors and his heart tell him to do and I hope to God that we send more troops in kick some more terrorist ass. As the troops and our military want, not what the American public wants.
Take that JAT and put it where the polls don't shine.
The problem with you libs is your weakness when it comes to fighting and when you win an election, you automatically think it's a mandate of some sort. Whooppppiii!

Thus far, I have not seen a poll that insists that the American voter has given that mandate, so, take a deep breath and remember this, GW has juevos the size of basketballs and he isn't afraid to say "NO" to those that challenge him. Even Jimmy Baker.

Navydad, I think I love you.

Halliburton's no-bid contract was signed in 1998. There is a reason for having an no bid contract.

Just how would you swooning Libs handle situations which demand immediate deployment of highly trained personnel, with skill sets most likely gained in the higher levels of military service, with excellent security clearances already in place, to accomplish things which are classified?

Just HOW, Libbies, would you ask for bids on projects which are classified and/or top secret?

Halliburton has invested billions of dollars to establish itself as a company which has pre-vetted security-cleared personnel ready to go at a moment's notice. They have invested this money in establishing relationships in many countries, most of which are too dangerous for any of you to envision visiting, and building a huge infrastructure of vehicles, equipment, and materiel in locations all over the world.

It is obvious that none of you has ever been an executive, has ever had to make huge decisions rapidly and decisively. It is clear that none of you could organize a school picnic, much less a materials and fuels depot on the border of Iraq ready to move at a moments' notice. I get the impression that none of you has ever faced anything more dangerous than a sprained pinky from slamming out some attack on a conservative from your keyboard, so you would not have the slightest idea of how to round up a few hundred qualified people to drive fuel trucks into a battle zone, or how to put together security for those rebuilding Kosovo, or how to build and man kitchens to feed troops all over Iraq.

Your incessant whining about Halliburton is just more proof of your total disconnect with reality. And your pettiness, and a political alignment so baseless that it requires a few handy catchphrases you can drag out at a moments' notice in the belief that they equal knowledge or real information.

BTW, I have to nominate JAT for the Drivel of the Day award----it's a slam dunk, at least unless Errortime gets on before midnight.

Americans are smarter than the GOP gives them credit.
That why Repubs were so shocked when the Dems cleaned house last November.

Your incessant whining about Halliburton is just more proof of your total disconnect with reality.

Total disconnect describes it precisely. When a Dem's in charge, anything goes, on- and off-duty. Rush nails it when he says the libs cry about Republicans behaving in the same manner as them. Case in point, Social Security. Bush wanted to improve the program, and the libs cried foul. They bitch about the prescription drug program, only because they think they "own" the entitlements, and therefore, they and they alone can change them.

Navydad, Almiranta, thanks. And JustAnotherTurdslinger, yout win the dumbarse of the day award.

Mark,
Your bitterness of the Repugs losing this last election has brought out the true you, a whining fool with no facts to back any of the crap you spew.
I am going to keep a screen snapshot of your site so I can show my grand kids just how brainwashed and ignorant some people on the right truly are.
I'm ashamed that you live in my state of Minnesota, I hope you move to South Dakota or texas.
Fool.

Americans are Smarter Than Democrats, Liberals

LoL! How true!
:)

Keefer,

Thank you for keeping the 4 letter words out your post. Your learning some manners. This is progress.
I apologize for my apology. But I hated to go back to Iraq sounding like some broken record.
But you failed to address the essential points of my post:
1)The public does not trust Bush with its money because of the way he has wasted it in Iraq.
2)That much of the failure of the Iraq war was a misguided attempt to prove the efficacy of private enterprise in what should have been an effort lead completly by US government officials. This has lead to the loss of Billions of taxpayer dollars. Every 1.2 billion loss represents according to Peter Schoomaker, the armies leading general, 10,000 more soldiers. We need the money for soldiers, who are far more effective for far less money relative to the contractors.
3)In addition to being no bid, there seems to be way to assess the value of the services being performed to the Iraqi reconstruction effort. They get paid no matter what, and they never seem to be evaluated.
4)The financial failure in Iraq represents the contradictory thinking that lead to the defeat of Bush supporters:Bush comes to government to prove to taxpayers they can't get their moneys worth from government, and succeeds brilliantly. Then he wonders why the taxpayers people don't trust him with their money.
5)I agree that SS as it is currently structured cannot continue. Bush and his supporters, being the spendthrifts that they are, have proven they are not conservatives. They are, therefore, not trusted by the American people. Handing out government services paid for with the help of Chinese credit isn't the same as cutting the budget. We need a real conservative to lead the reform of SS, and other spending priorities in this country. Either cut the budget, or raise the taxes to pay for it.

Lom,

Uh, I live in Nevada...I might be brainwashed, but I can at least be clever enough to check a person's profile before making judgements about them.

Wade, for the final time SS benefits are NOT guaranteed!. The reason the public went against President Bush on SS reform was due to a well coordinated fear campaign involving the Democrats and the MSM; involving two points; Bush wants to take SS away from us; and privatization is evil. What is really evil is not allowing the American people to have control over the money they make, and "investing", I use that term loosely,in a socialistic wealth distribution scheme, that most people will never see near the amount that they put into the system. Further more, all most all economists agree, with the exception of that fake economist Krugman of the NYSlimes, that SS has become a raw deal.

57% think Social Security needs to be fixed, and only 27% think that taxes should be raised to do it.
It's not the "smarter" people who think you can get a free lunch.

Not sure if I'm one of the older bloggers here, but I can tell you all that I for one "do not" count on SS for my retirement. I had my forty quarters in 20 years ago.

I've done my own analysis with some of my lib friends and found that all believe SS is a birth right.....puke. It shows how (a) either they believe it or (b) they are only spewing liberal talking points.

Now these are fairly intellegent people, so I have to assume that they're the latter because no one in their right mind would consider SS a birth right. Therefore it must be a lie. Hmmm...makes one think about all the dems that have been out there on the campaign trail that preach this contemptuous bs to their constituents.

Sounds like if Algore owned Haliburton then it would be OK...LOL!!

By the way Lomstraturdus, your party is one braindead senator away from losing control...so don't get your hopes up yet...pissant.

Well... I'll ignore the complete idiocy of the statement made by the title of the post, and I've ranted enough about how stupid polls are... this caught my eye, however.

Total disconnect describes it precisely. When a Dem's in charge, anything goes, on- and off-duty. Rush nails it when he says the libs cry about Republicans behaving in the same manner as them. Case in point, Social Security. Bush wanted to improve the program, and the libs cried foul. They bitch about the prescription drug program, only because they think they "own" the entitlements, and therefore, they and they alone can change them.
-Keefer

First of all, I think that we should all applaud Keefer... for this is one of the first posts I've seen (granted, I haven't been here for a while because of an "Error 403 - Forbidden" error message) in which Keefer actually tries to make an argument, instead of just insulting people...

There is an interesting, and very non-conservative, way in which the new prescription drug benefit works. Simply stated: Before the new plan was passed, the government was able to set the prices at which it bought the drugs, as to where, though the Pharm. companies weren't happy, the amount of taxes that went in to the program was relatively low.

Relative to what?

Now, basically... With the new Prescription Drug Plan, the companies set the prices at which the government buys their drugs, driving prices, and the amount taxpayers pay, up.

Now, with social security, it does need to be changed, but any change shouldn't be sudden and drastic. Privatization should be phased in over time (probably a couple decades), if it is to be included at all. I will let people who are more trained than me in this area to determine how it would happen...

Before you throw out the straw man of me just being another tax and spend liberal, let me throw a few facts out there...

First of all, I support dismantling the income tax and reducing government spending, especially on entitlements.

Secondly, total spending has risen more than 42% since Bush has taken office.

Thirdly, former Representative Bob Barr, who helped spark the Clinton Impeachment hearings, left the GOP for the Libertarian Party, citing spending as a primary reason.

Lastly, instead of putting spending for the multi-billion dollar debacle that is the Iraq War in the Budget (I think that it is safe to say that, more than three years later, it is a permanent expenditure, for now), in "emergency appropriations", no doubt that this is to make the budget, and, by proxy, total spending, to seem smaller. Actually, one thing that I would love to see the new majority in Congress make Bush put Iraq and Afghanistan spending in to the budget.

One final note (unrelated to the previous points), navydad's reference to the Senator from South Dakota, who is actually responsive and recovering nicely from his brain surgery, not only just as "one braindead senator," but only as a means of Republicans regaining the Senate Majority, shows me just what "Compassionate Conservatism" is all about...

Lostanddumbass just loves to vent his spleen, don't he? What is so fascinating is that he is typical of so many radical far-Lefters.

I have an impression of them as fringe types their entire lives, marginal in education and earnings and pesonal success, never quite accepted because of their core nastiness and bitterness. And then along comes a movement which embraces them, praises them, and tells them that blind vicious hatred is a GOOD thing. It even feeds this darkness with radio shows like Airhead America, leads them to Left-wing blogs, and in general tells them that they are not only right to be hate-driven, only a very few (on the infamous "RELIGIOUS RIGHT") don't agree with them.

It's a perfect movement for them, because it not only does not demand any real knowledge, any undertanding of economics or international affairs or history, it finds knowledge and information to just get in the way of a good hysterical spitefest.

And when Lost or one of his ilk indulge in a senseless and mean-spirited rant, such as the one here, his other loser Libs will gather around and high-five him, because he expressed their own limited and vile view of the world. It's a tiny little clot of fellow travellers, kind of like an abcess, which happens to have the support of those who know they can use these ignoramuses to further their own political ambitions.

But they do not represent the Democratic Party, which voted overwhelmingly last month in favor of simple conservative values, just for Dems who professed to share those values instead of for the Republicans who really do. So they are now frantically scrabbling to rewrite history, to ignore/deny the electioneering of the Dems who won and to pretend that they really won by admitting to be Liberals.

And their true colors show every time they indulge in some particularly nasty piece of work, such as the ridiculous attack on Mark. (Hint: Las Vegas is NOT in Minnesota.)

But maybe you'll get lucky, Lostanddumbass, and get a Senator who really reflects your intelligence and worldview, I hear Alf Ranken is thinking of running......

Gerfrawg

I for one am not a so-called "Compassionate Conservative"...screw that! I'm for killing terrorists...yes they do exist, and anyone that F#@&* with me or our my countrymen, however, the left in this country wants to believe terrorists are no more than gangstas...gimme a break.

The biggest problem with politics today is the over analyzing of life threatening issues such as terrorism, and the "fact" that the libs have only one solution...uh...what is it? Oh yeah....cut-n-run. I forgot, you don't have a solution!

As far as the braindead senator goes, you libs are so compassionate when it happens on your side, but when it happens to our side, we don't hear a peep. Remember when Cheney shot his good friend. All we heard was what a SOB Cheney was, but we didn't hear how sorry you were to hear about his friend...hypocrite!

The fact of the matter is that we can see right thru your rhetoric and BS, so keep bringing it on.

Conservatism won in this last election and every single Dem that is running in 2008 has begun to move further and further to the right, but make no mistake, the conservative voter won't be fooled by a Clintonoid or Hussein Obama, or your favorite Chicken little ALGore.

One other note on your "great tax renovation idea". Do you or you id-illogical idiot buddies understand the enormity of changing the tax code...probably not. It consists of millions of words that were assembled over years, not months and to change one minute aspect of the code is incredibly difficult, especially when you have so many opposing opinions in Congress. It's easy to sit back and judge or spew your hatred for the other party, but a rational person understands the complexity of changing a system that is ruled by 300,000,000 people not 435...get it?

Almiranta

Sorry Almiranta! I was going to commend you on your last post but this idiot Gspot frawg got me so heated, I forgot to post it.

Almiranta,

Clintons one military adventure went off without a single American losing his life, and, remarkably, the coalition put together to keep the peace in Kosovo has worked. In re-evaluating what is happening in Iraq, the work of private for profit contractors must be assessed as part of the success of the over all mission.
Whatever Clinton signed on private contractors for in Kosovo worked. Whatever, private contractors in Iraq have done has not demonstrably helped our efforts there. Private contractors have proven much more expensive, and much more difficult to hold accountable than regular troops. It's time to renegotiate whatever no bids we have out there, and demand more for our money. If the contractors can't do it for what we can have regular troops do it for.
Tell the contractors goodbye, and rather than the measely 2.2 percent pay increase for our troops(The lowest in 13 years. This represents 444 million of a roughly 300 billion dollar defense budget.), triple it, and use what's left over for signing bonuses to increase our troop strength.
We must tighten oversight so that thousands of weapons, and tons of explosives don't get handed over to our enemies, and turned on our troops.
We will not prevail in Iraq if our spending/accounting priorities aren't changed. Conservatives keep careful track of how money and other resources are allocated. It's liberals, both the secular and the theological, like Bush, who don't care how the moneys spent.
Taxpayers don't trust Bush because of the way he has wasted our resources in Iraq. They aren't about to trust him with SS either.

Navydad-

You know what I find to be funny? You talk with disdain of liberals cutting and running (just so you know... I have never advocated that) as a way to avoid a difficult situation, yet you seem to take the same line on the tax code.

Sure, you may take offense to me comparing war to taxes, but there is an underlying theme to both of them... one shouldn't avoid doing right thing merely because it is difficult.

When the income tax was instituted it wasn't intended to be permanent. It was supposed to pay for the Spanish American War, and then it was to be abolished... However, the government doesn't like giving up what it has. As a result, we are taxed when we make our money, when we spend our money, when we invest our money, we get taxed for what we own, and when we give our money to our children.

So, do you want to get taxed once or get taxed five times?

Just because it is very difficult, doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do.

Hey Frog,

"one shouldn't avoid doing right thing merely because it is difficult."

What type of nonsensical statement is this?
One minute you sound like a conservative and the very next sentence you sound like a lib...which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Please present the definition of the right thing and I'll let you know if it's easy or hard to do. That's how much sense that makes.

We may want to change the tax code, or even do away with it all together, but when you talk about being taxed five times, hell, you were taxed at birth and if you'd come down to reality, you'd realize that there are plenty of loopholes in the tax code to prevent one from paying exorbitant taxes.
I know many taxpayers that continue to pay and pay because they're too lazy to educate themselves regarding the tax code and who's fault is it.....their's.
Like I said before, I don't care about the past and whether the tax code was created to pay for Michael Moore's addadictome or not. The simple fact is that we live in the now not the then.

Thank you for keeping the 4 letter words out your post.

Just Another Arselicker, I make every effort to avoid 4-letter words in this blog, in deference to Mr. Noonan.

Your learning some manners.

Perhaps, but you're still misusing words, aren't you. Go jump in front of a bus, you brain-dead moron...

Now that sounds more like the keefer we have all become familiar with. Why debate when you can spew hate?

Typical CO post follows:

Blah, blah, blah, I'm a moron from Canada who has not one, but two boyfriends. Blah, blah, I hate America, blah, blah. Axass, Canuckgay, I love you, blah, blah...

Keefer

You have a problem with loving your fellowmen?

Queefer,

I'm convinced you are either under the age of 13 or over the age of 65, because I am not sure how anyone between the ages of 13-65 could find your "insults," well...insulting. Go to fark.com and try and troll with the big boys, or come back in a couple years when you experience your first queef...you'll know it when it happens, and when you do, you'll think of me, Gar Wood!!!

Gar Wood

You have a problem with loving your fellowmen?

Nope. I just don't love 'em the way you do, boy.

I'm convinced you are either under the age of 13 or over the age of 65,...

I'm 50, son, and the reason I do what I do here is I can't stand you morons, and I wish you'd all be banned. You're a bunch of idiots who come here for one purpose--to gloat. I gloat whin my team beats a hated rival. I tend to treat the gathering threat seriously, not as a political issue. It matters not to me who runs the show in my country, just as long as they keep their hands out of my pockets, and the crazies out of my back yard.

As for the "queefs," you should know. Every time you open your mouth, out comes a pu**y fart...

just as long as they keep their hands out of my pockets, and the crazies out of my back yard.

Keefer

Bush, with his mistaken war, has his hand in your pockets to the tune of more than 350 billion and is still asking for more, and the U.S. has always had its own brand of domestic crazies.

If you are a 50 year old individual, why act so juvenile?

CO-

I've been through this dance with Keefer before... he's just bitter. It's better to just not read his posts.

Bush, with his mistaken war, has his hand in your pockets to the tune of more than 350 billion and is still asking for more, and the U.S. has always had its own brand of domestic crazies.

Obsessive, this is why I rarely answer your drivel--I totally reject your premise about a "mistaken war." Your stupid arse is on the bash-Bush/bash-America bandwagon, and deserves no consideration. And for you, a stupid, drug-influenced Canadian, to compare out "domestic crazies" with those who behead and blow up innocents in the name of Allah, is absolutely reprehensible to me. If I ever met you, I'd spit in your stupid face.

If you are a 50 year old individual, why act so juvenile?

Read my posts, moron--I've spelled this out a million times. BTW, I could ask you the same question, but frankly, I could care less about some moronic a**hat from the great white north. You and your two boyfriends are merely poop stains on an otherwise fun blog. Why don't you start your own blog, and take all your hate-America trolls with you? Of course you wouldn't--you come here to criticize and play gotcha.

Now run alone, Canadian Opium addict--Canuckgay and axass are lonely...

One more thing, keefer, then I will leave you alone to wallow in your own special blend of hatred.

When you say:

"I could care less about some moronic a**hat from the great white north."

Don't you really mean that you COULD NOT care less about some moronic a**hat from the great white north? Otherwise, keefer, you might give me the impression that deep down in your cold, cold heart, that you truly do care.

JAT, I happened to know Brown Root and Kellog execs in charge in Kosovo, and buddy, if you think it all went so swimmingly well over there, let's get together to talk about a great bridge I have for sale.

And as for "...Clintons one military adventure went off without a single American losing his life..." I have three words for you: Black Hawk Down.

Clinton's other efforts would have to be called "military MISadventures". We lost American lives in the bombings of the embassies in Africa and of the Cole, remember? And Osama his own self told us in very clear and unambiguous terms that the "loss of American lives" on 9/11 was precisely because of Clinton's failures in addressing the many American lives lost in prior attacks, and the subsequent belief that America was a "toothless tiger" that could be attacked at will.

As for his great and amazing "success" in Kosovo, well, we still have American troops there. And that was HOW many years ago? Here's an idea---why don't you all put together a "timetable" for withdrawal from Bosnia and see what happens.

You guys are so far past silly, we need a new word for silly to the nth degree. Oh, that's right---we have one. We call it Liberalism.

Great post, JAT. Pretty much nails it.

Semper Fi!

Conservatism wins, every time its tried Except when for mid-term elections?

Conservatism wins, every time its tried...

Well...except for all those times it failed miserably.

Almiranta,

Since you know these execs from KBR so well, maybe you could find out from them why what they did in Kosovo isn't working out in Iraq. Maybe you could also ask these battle hardened execs how many casulaties they've taken. (That's not a question I ask lightly. I'm serious.)How much money they've lost for their charitable patriotism. How much their employees are paid vs. US soldiers. I'd also like to know how many times they've testified publicly before congress about how what they do helps the soldier in the field, and whether the troops there currently would be better off helping themselves to a larger payraise, and a bigger force of comrades about them. Ask the soldiers if they would like some of the money being paid to the private contractors, and whether they could do the jobs themselves. I think they'd tell you they could.
We may still have troops in Kosovo, but none, as far as I know, has died in combat. No more massacres, relative stability, low or no casualties, and at a fraction of the cost of what we've spent in Iraq. God, could Bush with all his private contractors have achieved the same in Iraq?
As far as Black Hawk down goes, didn't that begin with Bush 1. Clinton inhereted that situation, and was to do exactly what with it? Not being able to spell out a specific mission for our armed forces lead to that disaster, as the lack of a specific mission now has lead us to Iraq. As far as going after terrorists, didn't Clintons FBI get the people responsible for the 1993 trade center bombing, and aren't they still in jail. If only Bush could say that about you know who. As far as the Embassy bombing goes, Clinton went after you know who, and was denounced by Bush supporters for trying to distract the country from Ken Starrs 60 million dollar mission to get hold of a semen stained dress. (The 9/11 commission spent only 1/4 of that, and it's recommendations have gone about as Clintons impeachment proceedings. Interestingly, both processes were presided over nearly the same group of people.) The incident on the USS Cole happened 4 months before the end of Clintons term. Clinton passed that on to Bush.
What Bin Laden thought of Clinton on 9/11 didn't matter. What Bin Laden thought about George Bush did. Evidently, whatever it was, Bin Laden thought Bush no more a threat than Clinton. Perhaps because Bush made no effort to get the perpetrators of the embassy bombing or the Cole until then. But, more important than what Bin Laden thinks about Bush is what Kim Jong Il, Mammoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Nouri Al Maliki, and Hugo Chavez think about Bush NOW!
NK builds nukes, Iran buys them from Russia, because we won't buy oil from them, while the US meekly accepts Chavez offer of cut rate heating oil to announce his succession to Castros position of socialist leader of the western hemisphere. And Al Maliki offers Baath party government jobs in exchange for putting down arms, and to talk to the Syrians(Which republican Arlen Specter announced he was going to do since Bush won't.) and the Iranians.
Toothless tiger...Please Almiranta...At least Clinton had dentures. No one of Americas enemies or their supporters thinks Bush even has those, anymore.