Man... I wonder what pisses liberals off the most...

Is it that Bush does what he thinks is best?

or

Is it that Bush doesn't care about polls?

or

Is it that he doesn't believe what they believe?

or

Is it that did what Clinton couldn't do, and that was win more than 50% of the vote?

or

Is it because Bush has actually furthered diversity in government, instead of just talking about it?

I wonder.

I'm with you, Mark - and our admirable President!

On this issue, at least, the President has made it clear that he is not going to waver, he is not going to sell out his beliefs because of politics. On other issues, we're open to debate. But on the issue of fighting terrorists abroad [b]on our terms instead of theirs,[/b]I'm 100% behind our Commader-in-Chief. Since his speech last Wednesday, and the subsequent fallout, it has become apparent that he is steely in his determination to address the issue of our national security despite what is becoming an increasingly vocal opposition to his policies on the part of Congress...

From where I sit, anyway, I can't see Congress doing much beyond a symbolic resolution. That, in itself, is a blow to national unity and benefits our enemies...

How lonely it must be at time as President.

I'm with you, Mark - and our admirable President!

On this issue, at least, the President has made it clear that he is not going to waver, he is not going to sell out his beliefs because of politics. On other issues, we're open to debate. But on the issue of fighting terrorists abroad [b]on our terms instead of theirs,[/b]I'm 100% behind our Commader-in-Chief. Since his speech last Wednesday, and the subsequent fallout, it has become apparent that he is steely in his determination to address the issue of our national security despite what is becoming an increasingly vocal opposition to his policies on the part of Congress...

From where I sit, anyway, I can't see Congress doing much beyond a symbolic resolution. That, in itself, is a blow to national unity and benefits our enemies...

How lonely it must be at times to be President...

The ones with the courage are our soldiers fighting in Iraq, not President Bush. (Ed. Note: Actually, there is a rarer courage - that of being willing to make a decision in a crisis. Most men and women just don't have this - they sit around waiting for someone else to make a decision...but every now and again we get men and women in power who are willing to take the responsibility and make a decision, even if it puts the lives of others and the fate of nations at stake...that is among the bravest sort of act a person can do).

If we fail, it won't be because Bush wimped out, I'm sure of that. The man has strong determined values and sticks to them.

The left will continue to unmercifully bash him after he's out of office and their history books will make ever effort to make him appear a demon. It's SOP for the left.

Still, it won't matter to him.

My money says you'll never see him years from know going off on a talk show host over his decisions.

Meanwhile - their newest icon is Jimmy Carter. Who, judging by the fact that over 15 senior people have jumped ship from his organization in protest over his book, has gone insane.

One jumped, then fourteen more en mass. Why? Well, they said plagarism, outright fabrications, glaring mistakes, and an insane message.

Actually....... Bill S. Are you really Jimmy Carter?

I live in the Mid-West and read Chicago Newpapers. Every Letter to the Editor in today's SunTimes is against the escalation in Iraq. Here are three of the letters. These are not spin doctors or political consultants. They are just regular folk, and they make more sense than any Bush, Chaney, Rice, Hadley or anybody else in this administration has ever said.

Bush must learn when to fold

There are only two reasons why President Bush would escalate a war that defies (Ed. Note - string of leftwing lies deleted), and common sense. The cynical reason (Ed. Note - opinions entirely unsupported by fact or common sense deleted). The second reason is that he is (Ed. Note - opinions entirely unsupported by fact or common sense deleted) the hope he can at least break even. It is easier to bet it all when you are gambling with other people's children (Ed. Note - a review of US military policy shows that children cannot join the military - ergo, the writer of this particular letter is either an ignorant fool, or just regurgitating leftwing talking points).

John D. Morgan,
Arlington Heights

(Ed. Note: A letter filled with obvious lies has been deleted)

Bill Corcoran,
Beverly

Dangerous, erratic power

Bush has decided, against nearly all advice, to increase the troop numbers in Iraq. I'm wondering if we could stop him if we all bought surge protectors?

Martin A. Berg,
Oak Park

(Ed. Note would like to point out to Christian that we don't allow known lies to be posted on Blogs for Bush, even if they appear in other publications not as determined upon honesty as we are. Ed. Note would further like to note that cleaning up this post to make it look good was annoying - but shows our fairness in allowing even very poorly written leftwing opinion on our blog).

The Daily Herald only has one Letter to the Editor on this subject, and it too is critical of Bush.

Do not let Bush fool us all again

President Bush is like Lucy in the old Charlie Brown comic strip — Charlie Brown wants to kick a football, Lucy volunteers to hold it.

Despite a long history of her snatching the ball away from him at the last second as he charges the ball, which sends him flying through the air to land flat on his back, he still does it. Each time, she promises him that this time, honest and for sure, she’ll really hold the ball for him to kick.

And each time, of course, she yanks the ball away.

In this scenario, Bush’s promise that, honest and for sure this time we’ll make things work will only cost yet more American lives in a civil war that we should never have gotten involved with in the first place. (Ed. Note: longstanding liberal/left lie deleted).

Like Charlie Brown, shame on all of us if we fail to learn from Bush’s delusional fantasy of creating a democracy in a land where sectarian violence goes back for centuries.

Ask the families of the nearly 60,000 American lives lost in Vietnam if their sacrifice in the name of freedom was worth it. Like Charlie Brown, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Gilbert M. Riley

Arlington Heights

The two best letters come from Arlington Heights. They must have smart people there. (Ed. Note: or, alternately, they have several people willing to send off a canned letter provided to them by some Democrat group - Ed. Note could almost swear he saw this exact letter a couple years ago).

Mark,

This is one of the more absurd posts I've read in awhile. Who cares what personality traits you attribute to Bush or to Democrats? The only thing that matters is results. (That's what a true conservative would think, you know?) The President's performance on the job has been less than stellar, to say the least. On Iraq, he and his advisors have been consistently wrong for the entire war. Wrong about WMDs, wrong about being greeted as liberators, wrong about troop levels, wrong about the insurgency, etc...

The reason Democrats criticize the President, and the reason people listen to those criticisms, is because Bush has done a terrible job. That's it. Beyond that, I could care less if Bush is resolute, tough, manly, or any other tough-guy trait you wish to ascribe to him. Similarily, I couldn't give a s**t what you think about me or any other liberals.

When an elected leader no longer represents the people he is there to serve, insists that he is the one in charge and will take no advice, the only thing that's missing is his crown. The U.S. is no longer a democracy (a government in which the PEOPLE hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives).

If y'all here are willing to live in the kingdom of George W. Bush, well good luck.

CO,
President Bush was elected by a majority of the voters. He holds the office until the next election. The fact he leads by his convictions and not by polls is a testement to his character.

The democrats have a majority in the house and senate. They can choose to cut off the funds and end this. Why don't they? Are the democrats cowards? Spineless? All talk and no action? We could go on and on about the lack of leadership in the dem party.

How's that 100 hours plan coming? Just a another dem sham I guess!

CO - Half of the nation didn't want Lincoln to fight slavery. Do you think it would have better if he hadn't?

Go club some seals.

Thank God Almighty for President George W. Bush, the Greatest President in United States History!!

A man who has the Courage to do what is right, no matter what the pundit mouths of Washington or anywhere-else say!!

Thank God for America, the Greatest Nation on earth, and the troops who defend her!!

God be for us, who can stand against us?

God bless the U.S. of A!!

Jeremiah

Kahn

Freeing the slaves was a positive act. A shock & awe bombing and subsequent occupation of foreign nation is a negative act.

The clubbing of seals is an abhorent deed which I condemn with all my heart. Anyone who buys and wears fur should consider what is done to obtain it. Shameful.

CO:
You're the subject, not us. Not only is your analogy incorrect, but your own country has an unelected Queen as it's head of state, with an unelected representative to represent that Queen, with a nationally unelected head of government.

Wow... you sure can come to us to discuss "democracy." You're blatant hypocrisy has been replaced, at least on this issue, with stupidity. Come back to us when Canada becomes a representative democracy with snap elections to replace a leader everytime an opinion poll shows the people wanting something different than your leaders.

wawillyo,
Unfortunately when you don't have FACTS to backup your incorrect statements you resort to being insulting.
President Bush is a liar and a destroyer of our Constitution. He'll never leave Iraq until it's no longer profitable for his corporate cronies. He cares nothing for the price our brave troops have paid. He has squandered our prestige in the world.

Courage, this is nothing short of LBJ and Nixon arrogance and insanity. One by one we will watch the neocon lemmings fall from the cliff. There are only about 25% left.

Bush keeps saying those who oppose me and the McCain doctrine show me your plan, but if the plan does not include an assault on Iraqis, who we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys he and the talking head neocons just say, “no military assault than you have no plan.” He fires generals that do not go along and he dismisses any Democrat that provides a deplomatic plan to pull back to a safe distance in say Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait and see if the Iraqis can figure it out themselves.

CO,

In times of war, our President has the latitude to enforce the following, and note the words "shall" and "may". In other words, unless he's impeached, he literally has all the power...which we the people have granted him.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Wawilliyo

Our parliamentary democracy allows for a three-party system which, for example, curtails any ambitions the ruling party may have for world dominance. We are also a member of the British Commonwealth with the Queen at its head. She has no political power and exists as a figurehead.

Canadians vote for their government in free and open elections. The results are clear and do not need the courts to decide the winner.

Are the democrats cowards?

Yup!

Spineless?

Yup!

All talk and no action?

Yup!

Trifecta, Nebraska!

CO, your ignorance about how a representative republic works is just staggering, especially given your close proximity to us. No where in the President's oath of office does it state, "I promise to base my decisions on public opinion polls". It says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the reason that we hold presidents accountable every 4 years, and only allow them to serve 2 terms.

CO- We have one president, not 350 million, and not 5 billion.

It's going to be llllooonnngggg time, if ever, we have a President who is so faithful to his own convictions!

Kahn,
Hilarious, you're in rare form today. I'm rolling here, having trouble breathing.

CO writes:
"Freeing the slaves was a positive act. A shock & awe bombing and subsequent occupation of foreign nation is a negative act."

So basically, Lincoln was a positive president up until he ordered Sherman to burn his way through Georgia, at which point he became a negative king?

CO (conscientious objector?) also writes:
"When an elected leader no longer represents the people he is there to serve, insists that he is the one in charge and will take no advice, the only thing that's missing is his crown."

You may have missed Edmund Burke, but he talks to this point. There are people who think elected governors should do exactly what the people want, and people who think they should do what they themselves think is right. Bush has been getting opinions on what to do, listening for two months now. He's not living in a bubble, it's libs who can't see outside of what fits with their hatred of Bush to realize yes, he actually called in all those people and talk to him. Your politics of fear doesn't play well considering what makes a person a king is refusing to give up power after someone else is elected. In fact, the idea that the people's passions should not be reflected in government is built into our Constitution with our Supreme Court not having limited terms. The framers of our Constitution valued considered judgment beyond today's fashion specifically. It's almost as if they foresaw our media.

Jeremiah writes:
"Thank God Almighty for President George W. Bush, the Greatest President in United States History!!"

Amen to that, while we still have the liberty to say such things.

Right CO:
Go ahead and suggest that you can have a government with the perspectives that a country with a divided government has.

For most of Canada's history, you've been a two-major party system where the majority party was able to ram things through Parliament.

So let's recap... our head of state/government is elected by the PEOPLE, not just the head of the biggest party in Parliament. Further, Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada. However, I'll give you that she's a figurhead... but I assume that great democracy of Canada would have an elected "figure-head representative." Oh wait, yet again, even the Governor General isn't elected.

So... let's see... as a federal citizen of the United States, I get to vote for three federal officials... all you get to vote for is for one.

Our elections are also open and fair, unless you get your news from the DNC website, which I'm pretty sure you do.

It's clear you don't understand the structure of the United States government or how our institutions work. We can clearly protect the minority WAY better than your Parliament can.

We wouldn't have a vote in Parliament all but saying Canada can break up because Quebec wants to NOT speak English. Our Union is indivisible.

It's just sad that you make Canada out to be this stellar pillar of calm and strength and hiding behind the fact no one COVERS Canadian news, you have the third biggest party in Parliament that desires nothing than to not be part of Canada at all.

Interesting that I clearly know and understand more of the internal workings of Canada than you give Americans credit for. And quite frankly, I understand your Parliamentary system better than you understand our Federal arrangement. I could recommend some books for you if you're interested.

"Man... I wonder what pisses liberals off the most..."
Perhaps-just perhaps-it is the 600,000 dead people?

Waw, since I'm not versed on the Canadian House of Commons, please help all of us understand how CO's comment "Our parliamentary democracy allows for a three-party system which, for example, curtails any ambitions the ruling party may have for world dominance" has any relevance regarding the protection of one's country?

It seems to me that having a three party system could be more of an indictment of appeasement rather than an effort for unity!

Help me here!

All of this noble talk is just blowing smoke. Bush is just trying to run out the clock on his Presidency and dump the Iraq mess on the man who succeeds him. The End.

Navydad:
He's trying to indicate that a three party House of Commons makes it harder for one party to have an outright majority in Parliament. If the largest party doesn't have an outright majority they can't force anything through Parliament.

It also means that there are more people who will vote against something for political reasons rather than for things that need to get done.

For instance, the vote on Quebec is a perfect example of a minority government making a deal in order to get votes from another party.

It's just interesting that he preaches a system of checks and balances that we have structurally built into our government while his checks on "power to world domination (as if Canada EVER could even conceive of regional dominance... or even dominance of the Arctic where they are near armed conflict with several European nations)" are something that exists only in recent years by a fact that the Liberal Party alienated enough people across the spectrum that they created other parties.

Canada's government, represented by their lack of voting for their leaders, demonstrates EVEN less connection to the average voter than in this country.

The reason that Bill Clinton was an ineffectual president, was precisely that he followed the polls to a T. Depending on which way the polls went, determined the kind of action that Clinton took. In this day and age, we cannot afford having a president who is dictated by the polls. I will not go as far as Jeremiah in saying that President Bush is the greatest president that we have ever had, but his courage and steadfastness in the face of adversity is to be admired. All you have to do is imagine where we would be if Gore or Kerry had become president. I shudder to think.

Bush's staunch support for taking the war to those who want to kill us all if we don't convert has changed my mind on John McCain. 6 months ago, I wouldn't have given him the time of day. Now I am going to fully support him. I have seen nothing else from the top tier folks that will change my mind

Paul
B4B

I admire President Bush.

Arcman:
It's exactly why Clinton remains popular. He never takes a position that the polls tell him people don't like.

It's exactly how Hillary would govern as well.

It's how Liberals love to govern; principles are things that get in the way of being popular.

Bush was elected for four years... no matter how much bitching is done by those who dislike him, and no matter what a Times/CNN poll says, it won't change that fact. If only liberals and Democrats would recognize that.

Can't resist this...
CO said: The clubbing of seals is an abhorent deed...
Do you abhor the 'clubbing' of a fetus with the same degree disust?

Jay Gaultieri - Democrats with plan for success and no real plans to force withdrawl are trying to prolong Iraq so they have it as an issue in 2008.

You elected them to end the war. So why isn't ending the war even on the agenda in the "First 100 hours?? or even after that. It's your watch now - end it. You should be bombarding you Democrat Congressmen and Senators with mail and e-mail... if you really believe we should just pull out and you're willing to accept the ensuing bloodbath. YOU ARE in charge - deal with it. If you keep picking on the minority even after winning, then you're just assholes.

Kahn: I love you man...

"Man... I wonder what pisses liberals off the most..."
Perhaps-just perhaps-it is the 600,000 dead people?"

But if that's the case, why did Barbara Boxer and numerous other dims say that we had to intervene militarily to contain the threat Saddam posed during the Clinton administration? Oh, that's right, they're big liars who count on you saps having poor memories.

He's trying to indicate that a three party House of Commons makes it harder for one party to have an outright majority in Parliament. If the largest party doesn't have an outright majority they can't force anything through Parliament.

Posted by: wawilliyo at January 15, 2007 12:45 PM

Absolutely correct! Give the man his prize. Checks & balances.

Given that the US has a President who overrides any resistance to his agenda and does just about anything he wishes, means that either the checks & balances that are in place are not valid or the party that is in opposition is not doing its job.

We will have to wait and see if the Democrats finally have the heart & guts to do what is right. This man seems to be on a destructive course and should be stopped before he can do anymore damage.

Can't resist this...
CO said: The clubbing of seals is an abhorent deed...
Do you abhor the 'clubbing' of a fetus with the same degree disust?

Posted by Porter Jervis at January 15, 2007 01:36 PM

They are clubbing baby seals, not baby seal fetuses. The baby seal has been born.

CO:
Your checks and balances are based on sheer luck... At least ours are codified. And even with the Executive and Legislative Branch together, each branch has more power individually than Parliament or the Prime Minister wishes to have.

Explain to me how exactly the President overrides resistence to his agenda? Enlighten us, since you know more about our way of life than we do.

Further to that end, we get to elect more people to represent us than your country would ever allow it's people. Who elects the Senate EVEN?

Come on, show me how Canada's government better represents it's people than the United States Government does.

You can't, and you'd be foolish to even try.

If only there was something in Canada worth blogging about, maybe we'd be able to see your backside. But alas, NOTHING happens in Canada worth debating. At least there isn't until Quebec decides to just say "Up yours, eh" to the rest of Canada. Too bad that will destroy your country.

What's worse than a Canadian? A Frenchmen? What's worse than a Frenchman? A French Canadian.

I thought I'd pass this on. I just received it from my wife.

WHY, I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER!
>
>The Democrats have promised - "A New Direction For America"
>
>The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>
>Taxes are at 20 year lows.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced >in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either >dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, >including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded >in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of >the 9/11/01 attacks.
>A new direction from there means, what?
>
>Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be >made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush >said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from >the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get >their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading >to the United States to wage war on us here. A new direction from there >means, what?
>
>Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:
>
>The economy to go South
>
>Illegals to go North
>
>Taxes to go Up
>
>Employment to go Down
>
>Terrorism to come In
>
>Tax breaks to go Out
>
>Social Security to go Away
>
>Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone
>
>But, not to worry:
>
>I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Teddy K, >Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive >National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay >Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan,
>Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the >U.S. in the Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French >Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are >Plan.
>
>I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.
>
>Now I know why I feel good after the elections. I am going to be able to >sleep so much better at nights knowing these dedicated politicians are >thinking of me and my welfare.

>

CO: I'll add the word human, since you are being a smart ***.

How can you guys applaud this guy for being wrong on everything. Most military commanders have already stated this is a bad idea. Yet Cheney and Bush who skipped out on fighting in Vietnam know better? Since when do we not listen to the troops on the ground? I would like nothing better than to win this war but I don't trust people who are constantly wrong. Plus I'm not a blind follower. I'm a patriot. America should always come before party loyalty.

At least there isn't until Quebec decides to just say "Up yours, eh" to the rest of Canada.

Wawilliyo, I see, like Bacon, you've also got your Canadian accent/euphemism down pretty good, eh. CO, is that sort of like "heh" without the first "h", or did it orignate with someone who was hard of hearing? I'm just curious.

They are clubbing baby seals, not baby seal fetuses. The baby seal has been born.

CO, I'm also curious about something else. Which, in your mind, would be worse. Clubing a baby seal (that's already been born) to death or catching a baby seal in the process of being born and sucking its brains out before the head clears the birth canal? Again, just curious. I'm trying to get a handle on what makes Canadians tick, eh.

Explain to me how exactly the President overrides resistence to his agenda?

Patriot act?? Rubber stamped.

CO: I'll add the word human, since you are being a smart ***.

Posted by Porter Jervis at January 15, 2007 02:18

Same thing. (Human) baby has not been born.

At least there isn't until Quebec decides to just say "Up yours, eh" to the rest of Canada.

Came to Montreal for Expo '67. Fell in love with the place and have stayed here through thick & thin. Seen referendum after referendum. We're still part of Canada and as long as that holds true, you can call me a Quebecois Canuck, eh!

If it's OK to kill unborn babies... maybe we should eat them, CO? I mean, it's just protein. Probably taste real good. We could raise and harvest embryos for stem cells, then cook up the remains for our omelets. Yum. I mean to NOT do that with such a resource is just wasteful isn't it? I'll bet burning them contributes to Global Warming.

Liberals advocate eating babies. Yes. That works.

If it's OK to kill unborn babies... maybe we should eat them, CO? I mean, it's just protein. Probably taste real good. We could raise and harvest embryos for stem cells, then cook up the remains for our omelets. Yum. I mean to NOT do that with such a resource is just wasteful isn't it? I'll bet burning them contributes to Global Warming.

Liberals advocate eating babies. Yes. That works.

Posted by Kahn at January 15, 2007 03:38 PM

What???? Kahn, please calm down. I have yet to meet a liberal who advocates the eating of babies but perhaps I don't associate with the same group of cannibals that you do. As for how good they taste, well, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

Yech!! This thread is just getting too sick for my taste.

Never mind whining about the cute cuddly baby seals.

What about chickens???? The Colonel is a mass murderer.

BTW, both the USA and Canada and for that matter several European countries and a smattering of others are functioning democracies, both with flaws, both preferable to any other system of government. End of debate please!!

Get back to clubbing Bush.

So, if you can call someobe a cannibal for eating a dead fetus, that makes the fetus a human and if you kill them that makes you a murderer.

"Man... I wonder what pisses liberals off the most..."
Perhaps-just perhaps-it is the 600,000 dead people?"

When discussing the number of casualties caused by this war, one is remiss in neglecting the opportunity cost of the money spent on the war. Imagine the number of lives that could have been saved around the world with the $1 trillion ++/-. I do not intend to say that the war is or is not worth the costs, or that the money WOULD have been used wisely had it not been used on the war, only to remind that any good investor considers the opportunity cost of capital - I'm tired of people forgetting how insanely much good that money (and military) could have done (not that some of it doesn't "trickle down" from the war).

Sunk costs and the meaning and value of honor for the fallen are a related discussion, but one for another day.

Now, I'm no economist, but I think these things are true.

PS Whether or not this war was the right thing for our leaders to do, I am seriously uncomfortable with the massive domestic propaganda campaign that has accompanied it [ahem, ahem].

"PS Whether or not this war was the right thing for our leaders to do, I am seriously uncomfortable with the massive domestic propaganda campaign that has accompanied it [ahem, ahem]."

Don't you mean the counter campaign by the left to destroy any chance that we might succeed in Iraq?

The right hasn't for a second tried to convince any of us conservatives otherwise and it's only the kook fringe that either didn't listen or didn't read the Bush plan.

If you'll recall, he stated a number of times "this will be a long WOT so don't think it will be over tomorrow."

But most kooks only remember the mission Accomplished" carrier incident.

This really shows how un-informed most kook libs really are.

PatriotismIsJustAnotherIsm:
I'm glad to see someone who appears to be a liberal admits that the propaganda campaign from the left to destroy America's resolve to fight a war against extremist terrorism is refreshing to hear about.

It's amazing... November 3rd, EVERY Democratic Leader was advocating a troop build up, and then they immediately change their mind once the President says it's a good idea. The number of times that this has happened in six years is too numerous to count.

Thanks again for pointing out the ridiculousness of Democratic arguments.

I am hopeful,

That the next President of the United States, be it Republican or Democratic, Will order a full scale investigation of George and then will order the FBI to arrest him and will then ship him to the Haugue in the Netherlands for War Crimes.

Porter - yes, thanks you got it. The only way to chase down an absurd premise it to carry it through to its logical conclusion.

If the fetus is no big deal, then it's no big deal.

Will order a full scale investigation of George and then will order the FBI to arrest him and will then ship him to the Haugue in the Netherlands for War Crimes.

magnum, would you prefer he be hung before or after his 'fair trial?'

He has been investigated, harangued, belittled, lied about and scorned. Still, he holds true to his values and his priority of protecting America and our citizens, including you.

I'm still waiting to hear any relative plan the left has to protect America from another 9-11 terrorist attack, since we haven't had another since then.

The terrorists don't hate the west because of Bush (that is just you lefty's), they hate the west because we don't follow their misguided view of their religion. Conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Black, White, Hispanic, Oriental, Arab, whatever, they desire total world domination and the left is handing it to them every day.

Please explain the left's plan for protecting America from terrorism; I'd really like to see one.

Go Bush!! Ignore the 1939 Moonbat pacifists!!!

Doesn't it bother anyone that Bush is responsible for the deaths of more innocent Iraqis than Hussein was???

Blue:
Go sell your (Expletive Deleted. Ed. Note: This is a PG-13 blog, please keep language appropriate) up worldview somewhere else.

The difference between what Saddam did, and your accusation of President Bush is simple.

Saddam and his regime said "Kill anyone who tries to question me, or kill this person because I don't like their haircut or kill this man in front of his raped wife or kill this soccer player because they didn't get a gold medal in the Olympics."

Bush hasn't ORDERED anyone's deaths, nor is the United States Army OR the Iraqi Army for that matter responsible for a HUGE lion's share of the deaths in Iraq.... you can thank Saddam loyalists and Iranians, for different reasons but wanting the same result. Power.

How sad you've bought the view of fake "think tanks" like Global Research. It's almost as if you've plagirized that statement directly from their wacked out view of reality. Did you?

There isn't one democrat who could hold President Bush's jock strap. They know it and that's what pisses them off.

There isn't one democrat who could hold President Bush's jock strap. They know it and that's what pisses them off.

Posted by: james allegro at January 16, 2007 01:43 AM

James, I don't think you would get too many of either parties willing to hold that item in their hands.

My name is Rasmus and I’m from Denmark (Ed. Note: gratuitous and false slander against Americans deleted). Although I’m not from the US I hope you won’t mind a bit of outside perspective. First of all let me tell you how great it is to have a blog that allows everyone to voice there opinion (Ed. Note - Comment on comment policy deleted).

Being from Denmark I never got to vote for or against Mr. Bush although the consequences of his decisions reach far beyond the borders of your honourable country and have a direct impact on my little sphere. I don’t think George W. Bush is an evil man, and although I don’t think he’s very good at his job I’m convinced that he blindly believes in what he’s doing. I’m sure you will agree with me on that point, in fact I believe this is one of the things you really like about him, his steadfastness, determination and strong convictions with a religious undertone.

I’m a true believer in karma. As I’m sure you know karma is the laws of cause and effect or put differently, for every action there’s a reaction. Now I could throw countless examples your way explaining how you (we) got into this mess in the first place. (Ed. Note: Longstanding liberal/left lie deleted). (Ed. Note: Longstanding liberal/left lie deleted). But I’m not going to do that because you know all the arguments and hearing them again will not rock your determination or shaken your steadfastness. You have become immune.

Instead let’s look forwards in time. The fundamental difference between you and me now is that we disagree on the ripple effect your president is currently creating. You think Bush’s crusade against the evil Islamofascists and his desire to introduce democracy around the world thru force if necessary will help the world in the long run, and I think he’s simply creating more problems for all of us. Ask yourself this; compared to 10 years ago are there more or less people in the world now that would be willing to blow themselves up in order to kill some of you (us)? Is the “Bush way” working? Did going into Iraq help the cause? What is the cause? (Ed. Note: Longstanding liberal/left slander deleted)?

Do understand why (Ed. Note: Claim to impossible knowledge deleted) people feel they were tricked and manipulated into this war by your administration? Do you also understand why (Ed. Note: Claim to impossible knowledge deleted)people are against sending an additional 21.500 troops? Do you honestly think it will make a difference? Personally I think Bush has been surrounded by people who all agree with him for too long and he is no longer (was he ever?) capable of thinking straight. I find his religious motivations scary and if he’s not stopped he will strike at Iran out of pure desperation (Ed. Note: lie deleted) creating a world wide conflict of a scale never seen before.

Thousands of US soldiers died during the Vietnam War because NIXON wanted an honourable retreat and waited too long before pulling out. Is this what we are waiting for here?

Respectfully,

Rasmus

Rasmus

You are one of countless citizens of the world who feel frustrated and helpless with Bush's vision to spread 'democracy', at any cost, throughout the Middle East and who knows where else.

After 9/11, Bush had almost unanimous support from his own people and from other nations, as well. Since then, however, that support has just about evaporated due to the mistakes of a disastrously misguided policy. The stubborn, obstinate stance he has embraced has resulted in thousands of dead and wounded.

The damage can never be undone but we can hope that the new congress will do their job and stop him from doing any more.

You think liberals want George Bush to back down? He's going to hand Democrats the White House in 2008. He's going to keep doing the very things he did that caused his party to lose control of Congress in November. He's going to keep insisting that bi-partisanship means Congress do what he says or else. He's going to keep trying to grab power. He's going to keep blaming the generals and the Democrats and the Iranians and everyone in the world for his failures except himself.

Back down? George Bush is the best thing to happen to Democrats since Newt Gingrich.

You think liberals want George Bush to back down? He's going to hand Democrats the White House in 2008. He's going to keep doing the very things he did that caused his party to lose control of Congress in November. He's going to keep insisting that bi-partisanship means Congress do what he says or else. He's going to keep trying to grab power. He's going to keep blaming the generals and the Democrats and the Iranians and everyone in the world for his failures except himself.

Back down? George Bush is the best thing to happen to Democrats since Newt Gingrich.

Deleted - questions comment policy, commenter NOT banned because we tend to like Canuckguy and want him to stick around...but censorship is when we go into YOUR publication and tell you want you can't print...what we've done is edit OUR publication, just as all publications reserve the right to do in order to ensure brevity, grammar, spelling and, of course, to be sure that inaccurate information is as far as possible not transmitted.

Canuckguy

This blog ISN'T the property of the people and if the host wants to censor unwanted remarks...he may.

So get off it!

Deleted - questions comment policy.

Ya Blue:
In your worldview... there is no difference in ANYTHING. This is a blog, where moderators can edit posts as they see fit.

If someone called you a blankety blanking blanker, they'd delete that post too.

And when your KIND spout off blatant misinformation, then it goes away. Too bad it can't happen to the people who do the spoutin'.

If you have the nads to relate the editing of a blog to government sponsored free speech limitations, then you're probably also in favor of Nancy Pelosi's new campaign finance laws that are ONLY trying to stop conservative groups. She's all but said exactly that. I'm waiting for the Murderin' Senator to say just that.

Maybe Kucinich will come out and say it. After all, George Soros is paying Dennis's bills. Who cares if he made his money and fortunes on the back of those killed during the Holocaust (how's that for "impossible knowledge").

Deleted - Off Topic, insults to blog writers, commenter banned.

Lefties:

This is, as I'm sure you're aware, BLOGS FOR BUSH.

There are plenty of places out there where you can post overwrought appeals to emotion and hatred of Chimpy McSmirk Bushitler. We here at Blogs for Bush, however, have a moral obligation to not allow the spreading of lies - so don't bother trying to post lies (as a handy reminder: if what you are about to try and post makes it out that President Bush is the spawn of Satan, then it is a lie...remember, Bush is not Satan...you can disagree with him, but you shouldn't hate him...if you do hate him, you're probably either a progenitor of lies, or someone gullible enough to fall for them).

We also have a deep and abiding respect for President Bush - Blogs for Bush wasn't started up by people who thought that President Bush was a so/so kinda President. We really do think he's quite good - if we wanted to read an endless stream of insults to the President, we'd go over to Daily Kos or DU.

Finally, you ain't paying for this blog - this blog is provided free of charge to all who wish to participate, but participation is on our terms, not yours - this is not a free speech zone...America is, but this blog ain't. If you want to be absolutely able to say whatever you please, then pony up for your own blog and you will find B4B right in your corner defending your right to speak your piece. On your own dime, not ours.

I've always assumed that the song line "his mind was squirming like a toad" referred to a liberal.

Dear Mark Noonan. I’m baffled by your inability to take constructive criticism. If you were to stop being such a fanatic for one second and read my previous entry again, you would notice the tone in which the entry is written is respectful and that my comments are honest. (Ed. Note: A sincerely believed lie is still a lie, and we don't allow known lies to be spread on Blogs for Bush - an example of a known lie would be an accusation that we liberated Afghanistan in order to build a pipeline. Some people are convinced that this is true - but it is a lie, and we won't allow it)

I don’t mind you not agreeing with me and welcome you to add comments off your own to point out every leftist lie you think my entry might contain. However, simply deleting whole sentences because you happen to think they are not true, kind of defeats the purpose of having a blog in the first place.

I agree that one should not resort to name calling or threats but I did neither. (Ed. Note: Complaint about comment policy deleted). I realize that this is your blog and that this is where you and everyone who thinks like you meet up to confirm each others points of views, (Ed. Note: Insult to blog writers deleted), and that having a bunch of “Crazy” lefties try and voice there opinions must spoil it for you. But since you allow me to participate anyway may I suggest you also allow me to say what I think and reference historical events that I feel support my arguments?
Stop running your blog the way Bush is running your country but hear us out and prove us wrong and we will return the favour.

Respectfully,

Rasmus from Denmark

Rasmus,

Your post, pre-editing, was rudely contentious and had far too much conspiracy-theory mongering in it. Because you are new to the blog, we wanted to give you your chance, and felt that the best way to get you in tune with the parameters of discussion on Blogs for Bush was to make your unacceptable post acceptable. As long as you stay on topic, don't insult the blog writers, keep it clean, don't spread laughably false conspiracy theories about why we're in Iraq and fighting the War on Terrorism, then you should be fine.