« ENTENZA’S NEW THINK TANK SHOULD THINK ABOUT BUYING A NEW SIGN | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: MORE ANTI-CATHOLIC HUMOR FROM FRANKEN »
9-11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB, BUSH NOT A LIAR, MURDERER OR TERRORIST
By Michael B. Brodkorb | June 21, 2007
I was invited to a fundraiser this evening for Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in downtown St. Paul. The protesters pictured above were outside the event with these horrible signs. What a bunch of thugs!
I'll talk more about this event and these protesters during Saturday's radio show with King Banaian of SCSCU Scholars.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 88 Comments »
88 Responses to “9-11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB, BUSH NOT A LIAR, MURDERER OR TERRORIST”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:01 PM
the 9-11 stuff is annoying. the bush is a liar is 100%, murderer terrorist is in the eye of the beholder
June 21st, 2007 at 9:08 PM
President Bush is not a liar, a murder or a terrorist. 9-11 was not an inside job.
My God – writing that the President of the United States could be a terrorist or a murderer is unbelievable.
A terrorist? A murderer? My God….are you joking?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:16 PM
These people always look like they’ve just been let out of the insane asylum, haven’t showered since the Clinton administration, and their arguments make no sense.
They believe in this crud along with all the other half-baked theories they float out there. Just look at their mouthpieces: Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, and Charlie Sheen. Sounds like reasonable people – huh?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I was invited to attend tonight’s event even though I haven’t made a decision on who to support for president in ’08.
The folks protesting must have come from the insane asylum. Come on…9-11 was an inside job? Bush is a liar, murderer and terrorist?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:43 PM
“They believe in this crud along with all the other half-baked theories they float out there. Just look at their mouthpieces: Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, and Charlie Sheen….”
…and Andrew? Right, Andy, it’s all relative!
June 21st, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Michael,
They were outside our state central meeting too. Did you pick up their literature which claimed the 9/11 hijackers are still alive?
As for Andrew’s comments, I would simply say that he is anti-American. Any American who supports their country even when they disagree with the President would never say their country’s leader was a murderer or a terrorist.
Andrew suffers from what is called “Bush derangement syndrome.”
June 21st, 2007 at 11:27 PM
I’ll cast one vote for Bush is a liar, but the other items appear to be the result of bong hits or magic mushrooms that grow in the forest. Or maybe these folks are just attention getters–file it under ‘F’ for Forget about it.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:49 PM
While I by no means think Bush fits into this catagory, I think it is completly nieve to think that we couldn’t put a terrorist in the white house.
There are pleanty of intelligent evil people, and honestly if the voters do concearn themselves with things like Match.com profiles think of how easy someone with real problems can slip in the back door.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 AM
[...] Wesley Clark Link to Article john mccain 9-11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB, BUSH NOT A LIAR, MURDERER OR TERRORIST » Posted at Minnesota Democrats Exposed on Thursday, June 21, 2007 9-11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB, BUSH NOT A LIAR, MURDERER OR TERRORIST June 21, 2007 8:58 pm I was invited to a fundraiser this evening for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign in downtown St. Paul. The protesters pictured above were outside the event View Entire Article » [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 AM
The President has been less than honest about things over the years, but a Murderer and Terrorist? Hardly!!
I am more apt to believe that the assassination of JFK was an inside job rather than that of 9-11.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 AM
People are 100% STUPID if they think Bush lied about the reasons for the Iraq war. I want them to PROVE he lied. By the way, to lie one must KNOW what he is stating is false! And by the way, if he lied, the DUMBOCRATS lied too because they supported his decision.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 AM
I hope the few reasonable people left in the Democrat party see these idiots and recognize what their party has become.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 AM
here’s the problem. Richard Clarke (not a friend to this President Bush) wrote a book that said we found in Iraq after the first Iraq war plans by Iraq to build an atomic bomb and were almost ready to build it. And they made a decision to return these plans. If you assume these statements are true than you must believe:
* That Iraq was capable of building an atomic bomb and had to be stopped.
* A rumor that Iraq was trying to buy uranium has to be taken seriously.
* A man who has invaded two countries and used chemical weapons on his own people is a threat.
Therefore the decision to go to war is logical and correct unless intelligence can prove 100% there is no threat. One point about the Clarke book is that they didn’t realize Iraq was that far with their atomic program just like the experts when Libya volunatarily let people in didn’t realize they were further along than people thought. The fact that there are people who lied and pulled stunts to stobotage the President from getting accurate data are the people who are the traitors and liars. People like Joe Wilson, John Kerry who voted for the war, Hillary Clinton who voted for the war and said she had research with experts outside the Bush Administration.
If they want to call Bush a liar why isn’t Hillary a liar and not worth supporting. I bet they won’t answer that question.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:57 AM
Mike Grimes may be on to something. Hell, the Minn. 5th CD already voted a terrorist supporter in to the house.
The idea that Bush lied (much less the other garbage) is a fucking joke. 1) Name a lie. 2) Prove it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 AM
I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL THE CONVENTION HERE NEXT FALL!
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 AM
I hope the police are stocking up on rubber bullets (and may be a few live ones), and strengthening their trigger fingers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 AM
the bush is a liar is 100%, murderer terrorist is in the eye of the beholder
That’s crap, of course. A statement is either a lie or it’s not. If Bush is a liar over Iraq, so is every democrat who voted for it because they made the same statements based on the same information. Bill Clinton is also a liar on Iraq, too, because he was saying the same thing while he was our national embarrassment…er…president.
The truth is, democrats believe everything a republican says is a lie only because it doesn’t agree with their conspiratorial belief system.
1) Name a lie. 2) Prove it.
They can’t and they can’t.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 AM
In fairness to Andrew, he managed to make it through a comment without using foul language. A first for him!
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 AM
These people are lucky, because there are American Soldiers protecting their right to freedom and their insanity over President Bush everyday throughout the world.However, they make me sick. God Bless America and its true heros.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:26 AM
I like Boston’s solution, and commend it to St. Paul. That is, find a nice high-fenced area a block or two away, and “escort” them there, where they can yell at each other to their heart’s content. Their other choice is to be jailed for being a public nuisance. After all, it’s a free country for EVERYBODY, right?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 AM
Walter,
By you logic we should have invaded North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, the Soviet Union, China, etc. We did not. Was Reagan an mistaken by not invading East Germany? The world is not a nice safe place and we always have to learn the best way to deal with risk, often times it not work to simply beat it into submission. Reagan understood this and knew that the greatest power the United States had was our free market economy, not our military or even democracy. Government in general is full of power hungry incompetents who want control but can’t earn it in the private sector. Why should we trust them to preemptively invade a country to reduce a potential threat when they can’t seem to run a school, or control our borders.
Remember, you might not like Democrats and Liberals (I don’t care for their philosophy either) but because this is a democratic republic it is impossible to shut them out and have long term control over every aspect of what government does by one party or group. This means all plans have to take into account disagreement within our own boarders. That is a key element to keeping the power of government in check.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 AM
just another group of unintelligent, unemployed, live-in-their-parent’s-basement low lifes.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 AM
The Congress did not see all of the information that the President did; they saw the parts they were fed that were not redacted. They were shown the stuff that made the Administration’s case. That’s a fact.
I guess the people who still think that Bush has never lied never will believe it, but if someone purports to have an open mind, they can go to http://www.bushlies.net . Even if you only agree with half of the things on that sight, you would have to conclude that Bush lies a lot. And of course the right-wing response is “Clinton lied too”, but that doesn’t make Bush a non-liar.
Just because Democrats are attacking a Republican doesn’t make the Republican right. Anyone would have to admit there are some bad Republicans.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Bullshit Otter. Every Senator had access to exactly the same information the President had. Turns out many of them were to lazy to go read it, but they had the same information.
Here’s a useful sample: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Otter,
Bush has not lied. 1) Name a lie. 2) Prove it.
Links to lunatic web sites don’t count.
You’re a confused, stupid little rat.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 AM
The Republican response “Clinton also lied” is a non-starter. It’s not that Clinton lied about Iraq. It’s that he had the same information, and reached the same conclusions…
Bush DID NOT lie.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 AM
“I hope the police are stocking up on rubber bullets (and may be a few live ones), and strengthening their trigger fingers.”
For sure man, we don’t want anyone exercising their first amendment right! If they disagree we’ll call them unpatriotic and shoot them!
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 AM
If the question is has Bush ever lied then the answer would be yes, everybody has lied at some point. If the question is did Bush lie about something specific then cite the lie and the source showing that it was definitively a lie. Otherwise people are arguing about different things
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Thank you for making my case for me Chestnut. That letter you linked to shows that the Senators on the Intell Com didn’t have all the information that they wanted, they were asking for more and that the CIA was giving things to them piecemeal. They didn’t have all of the intellegence the Administration had, but obviously you are never going to believe me or anything in black and white that doesn’t fit your belief. Call any Senator’s office and ask them if they saw all of the intellegence that the President saw before the Senate voted on that Resolution in ’02.
“We’ve never been stay the course”, Pres Bush 10/22/06
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 AM
In Orlando Florida on December 4, 2001, Bush explained:
“Actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.” But I was whisked off there – I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
Again at a town meeting in Ontario in January 2002:
“first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane”
Both statements, however, have been criticized as impossible. The first plane to hit the tower was not shown live.
There are two lies for you
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 AM
You pathetic people on the far left, you cannot have it both ways.
Lefties believe President Bush is stupid. Yet he was smart enough to mastermind the 9/11 tragedies?
Which is it?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 AM
otter,
You said, “The Congress did not see all of the information that the President did; they saw the parts they were fed that were not redacted. They were shown the stuff that made the Administration’s case. That’s a fact.”
That is not true. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Congressional leaders do not get redacted intelligence information. They get the same information (albeit in a different document) as the President gets in his PDBs. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have admitted they did not even read the 2002 intelligence report given to Congress before the vote. Hillary is not the only Democrat who did not read the report either.
You cannot have it both ways otter. You can’t say the administration lied to Congress if they didn’t bother reading the reports.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Trench, you ignoramus, the bullets for the the rioters… if you boneheads want to speak your insane and stupid conspiracy theories fine. Its the car flipping, fires and violence that you perpetrate that will get you a well deserved “cap in your ass”.
… here Otter, you confused, stupid little rat:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Free speech should include my foot up some of these peoples ass!
Otter and Trench you just deserve a slap upside the head.
You cannot help you are brainwashed or stupid. “You cannot fix stupid”. 
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 AM
You know, he may not be a liar, terrorist, or murderer, but he definitely has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history.
But I guess you gotta fight the battles you can win, right Brodkorb?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Remember when Tom Daschle was going around with his “What did the President know and when did he know it?†BS? Do you remember the exact moment he stopped? It was when Tim Russert asked him “As Senate majority leader, didn’t you have the same information?†Tom looked like he just filled his pants, took a long pause and responded “It is in a different format.†I think Hillary carried the “What did he know†for another few weeks but Tom and everyone else shut up.
Also your heads of intelligence and some foreign affairs committees get briefed on certain international intelligence too. For anyone to say that the President is the only person in power with access to intelligence on any one or all subjects is just plain stupid.
Listen to Hillary’s code pink speech (2003?) where she goes on and on about the intelligence that supports the war. She said it was based on her own research and from reports during her husband’s administration. Was the world’s smartest woman completely bamboozled by the world’s dumbest man…while he was still Governor of Texas? Did Bush fool the entire world intelligence community only months into office? While still a failed oil man did he import the 9-11 hijackers to carry our his master plan? (Or was he Governor by then?)
If Bush lied then capital hill is run by a bunch of drooling retards who will believe anything. Just look at the votes and read the speeches.
One thing is for sure; there are a lot of amazing stupid people walking amongst us.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Whether some Senators read the NIE report or not does not change the fact that the Intellegence committe did NOT get the same information as the Administration. The Senate (and the public) for the most part got the parts that would seem to indicate what the Administration was claiming; many of the caveats and contrary views of the intellegence community were shared with the Administration, but not with those outside of it. But again, there is a very easy way to settle this. Call any Senator’s office and ask them if they saw all of the intellegence that the Administration saw before the ’02 War Resolution vote.
And for the record, after Katrina, the handling of Iraq after the fall of Saddam, the myriad Administration scandals, letting Afghanistan backslide, degrading America’s standing in the world, you are absolutely correct JGMPLS that this administration is too incompetent to have pulled off 9-11. And Bush is no more a murderer than any Commander who takes a nation to war where innocents are killed. It is worth pointing out that there was a time when this “pro-life” President had signed more execution warrants than anyone in the country when he was TX Guv. If any of those people weren’t guilty, I wouldn’t want to be in his place on Judgement Day.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Johnny Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
You know, he may not be a liar, terrorist, or murderer, but he definitely has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history.
Yet it turns out that the democRats in congress have even lower approval ratings, how would you explain that one asshole?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Otter: “Whether some Senators read the NIE report or not does not change the fact that the Intellegence committe did NOT get the same information as the Administration.”
So, what you’re saying is, if you don’t read your utility bill, that means you didn’t receive it?
Holy crap otter, you’re not just confused and stupid, your lazy, retarded and insane.
The goddam Senate had the exact same intelligence as the President had. The Senators all were absolutely convinced of the exact same information the President had. Bush had no more and no less than the Senators had available to them.
Bush, apparently, made the mistake of reading it and making decisions based on the facts.
The consensus of the intelligence community… not just the CIA, but also the British, German, Italian, Rusian and French intelligence was that, convincingly, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was in position to reconstitute its nuke program, and did have a relationship with al Queda.
The idea that anyone lied to you is just fucking stupid. Just stupid enough for lazy, cowardice, idiot Democrats to say.
Mixed in with a bunch of other unsubstantiated bullshit, and you’ve got the DFL platform.
Democrat is truly the party of the stupid.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Otterscrubber,
Are you suggesting that aborting children and putting convicts to death are essentially the same thing?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 PM
otter,
Your statements about intelligence are simply not true. Moreover, read what Democrats were saying about Iraq from 1998 all the way through 2002 and 2003. Here is a sampling:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Drew …. Great question. I am saying that I don’t understand how someone can be for protecting life or what may be the potential for life at the beginning and be agnostic on the matter at the end. We know that people on death row are human beings and some people believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, so in that sense I’m making a comparison. I guess I think if we’ve got a person in a box for the rest of their life I wouldn’t want to kill them or pay for them to be killed. Society has a right to protect itself (as do individuals), but once someone is put in a place where they can do no more harm, I just have a real hard time with the morality of playing God as to when and how that person’s life should end. I think “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are terms that have been co-opted by politicians but if you really look at those words they have a broader application than what they are used for. It seems like if someone were for life they wouldn’t be for the death penalty, at least certainly not as often as its been carried out.
Chestnut … Still waiting for the name of the Senator who said he/she had all the intelligence that the President had before the ’02 vote.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Judging from the second picture, it looks as if Mark Peterson could stand to lose a few pounds.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Otter.
The death penalty is a response to a criminal act.
Please tell be what crime an unborn child is being punished for.
If you can’t see the distinction, you’re beyond hope.
By the way, how do you feel about physician assisted suicide (since you “have a real hard time with the morality of playing God as to when and how that person’s life should end.”)?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Otter — that’s a pretty well evolved position on the death penalty. One I happen to agree with.
As for what Senator had all the intelligence the President had… ALL OF THEM. And particularly EVERY MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 PM
“Still waiting for the name of the Senator who said he/she had all the intelligence that the President had before the ‘02 vote.”
Exactly how many Commanders in Chief do you want? (Hint: the Constitution allows for one)
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 PM
… on that death penalty position… conversely, no liberal who is anti-death penalty should ever support abortion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I wasn’t saying a fetus had committed a crime. In response to crime (like murder) people should spend the rest of their lives in jail. I don’t want the Government deciding who should live and who should not.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 PM
With respect to the differences between the death penalty and abortion, here’s where I see the political fall line: Liberal Catholics talk about “life” and put their energies into opposing the death penalty. Conservative Catholics talk about “life” and put their energies into opposing abortion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 PM
True Catholics talk about both, and put their energies in to opposing both.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Otter.
Your views on the merits of the death penalty are irrelevant.
You stated ” I am saying that I don’t understand how someone can be for protecting life or what may be the potential for life at the beginning and be agnostic on the matter at the end.”
A fetus has committed no crime. A convicted criminal has. Whether or not you believe that the death penalty is a proper response to that crime (again, not arguing that point), you have to acknowledge the difference. There is no inconsistency in saying you believe in protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Just wanna clear up that I personally dont think Bush is a murdered or terrorist. Those terms are in the eye of the beholder. I think one can take a radical view of war and call someone who starts a war of choice and ignorance a murderer and a terrorist. I, however, dont believe that. I say a lot of things about Bush but murderer and terrorist are not something I’ve ever called him and never will. I still do see how someone could draw those conclusions, even if I believe they are wrong.
Surly, your asking how many commanders in chief do you want is a valid point, having an extra 100 is a bit absurd. But when your current one misuses his position as commander in chief and basically pisses on the role, I wouldnt mind someone else taking over that role, and if it is the Democratic party, sounds good to me.
Chestnut I believe it was, Congress has a lower approval rating because they havent done anything to stop the war. You disapprove because they are Democrats, many many Democrats disapprove because the Democrats in Congress aren’t fulfilling the reason America gave them majorities. Come September and they re-annalyze the war, if they put an end to the war, you will see that approval rating get a big uptick.
oh, and they are at 25% and Bush at 26%, statistical a tie, not lower
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 PM
And is Bush not a liar.
“Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”
we find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Bush lied about their being weapons of mass destruction
Congress stupidly believes Bush’s lie and some even lie along with him. Here is why Democrats who lied about WMD’s are given, they admit they were wrong! (Well except Hillary) The day Bush admits it and says sorry will be when I forgive him for lying.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Oh for ef’s sake, Andrew. After your contortions claiming John Kerry “never accusing” fellow vets of war crimes, this is especially rich.
Straight up question. Do you believe George Bush knew definitively (in direct contradiction to the world’s intelligence consensus) that Iraq had no WMD when he made that statement?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Chestnut, glad to know you are the final decider on what defines a proper Catholic and conservative… do true Catholics also try to swear at least once in each paragraph?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 PM
“Otter and Trench you just deserve a slap upside the head. You cannot help you are brainwashed or stupid. “You cannot fix stupidâ€.”
Nice sentence. There is a place called college Kahuna, if you ever graduate high school or get your GED you may be able to go.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 PM
You know, he may not be a liar, terrorist, or murderer, but he definitely has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history.
And this Democrat congress has got to have the lowest ratings in all of American history – 14%. Great job Pelosi and Harry “free boxing tickets” Reid!
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Johnny Says:
“You know, he may not be a liar, terrorist, or murderer, but he definitely has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history.”
Jimmy Carter’s lowest rating was 25% during the energy crisis, lower than Nixon’s during the Watergate crisis.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_malaise.html
That was a simple Google search to find the facts, Johnny. Oh, that’s right. You don’t like facts.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Andrew,
Read my previous post noting all of the Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger et al. who said Iraq had WMDs and ties to terrorism. These quotes were from 1998-2001.
Are they liars too??? If you are consistent and not just a hyperpartisan you will say yes.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 PM
RE: My #54
Andrew. Sorry about the Kerry reference I attributed to you. I was confusing you with someone else who was making no sense on the subject in a completely different post.
Meanwhile, wanna answer my question?
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Chris.
“Are they liars too?”
Andrew’s already got this covered. As long as you say “sorry” you can disavow anything and flip flop whenever you like as the political winds suit you. That’s known as “leadership”.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Andrew, in post #51… yes Bush said that. The intelligence community told him so. He didn’t lie. That EVERYONE was apparently wrong, does not mean that ANYONE lied.
BTW — Congress’ approval rating is 14 percent, not 25 percent. It makes Bush’s approval ratings look stellar.
To be fair, you’re probably right. Congress’ approval rating is directly related to Democrat’s refusal to fulfill their election promises and Constitutional obligations. Instead, they’re acting unconstitutionally, undermining our soldiers and making a further mocker of the U.S.’ standing in the world.
Either way, Congress is doing a miserable job. They’ve not accomplished a goddam thing since they took office, and have reneged on every one of their campaign promises (e.g. earmarks, Iraq, working full time, balanced budget, etc., etc., etc.)
If they thought the last Congress was “do nothing”, Pilosi and Reid have set out to show what “do nothing” and “corruption” really look like.
Democrats are lying, loser, cowards. Period.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Yeah, Carter had a lower approval rating. He was an incompetent boob then. He’s an anti-Semitic, incompetent boob now.
I used to think he was a good ex-president. It now appears Jimmy Carter rotten through and through.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Logan Lee (in comment #55) asks “do true Catholics also try to swear at least once in each paragraph?”
No, only Andrew tries to swear at least once in each paragraph. And he usually succeeds.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 AM
You either believe
A. That after 9/11 it was highly unlikely that Iraq would cooperate with terrorist organizations (they already had) and continue the games with the UN on their “WMD” programs (I believe it’s now been determined that Iraq was on track to have nuke by 2008, what year is it now?)
or
B. It was highly likely that Iraq would do the above and a war was justified
Time will tell. If only we had the will and if only the Democrats (and now some Republicans) had the courage to lead by conviction and not by polls, we’d be in a better place. That is why everybody’s polls are so low. People are disgusted.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Swearing is one thing. Killing children is another. Liberals kill children.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Chestnut, get help. PLEASE!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Na… I don’t need help, thanks. I see and think pretty clearly.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Big Kahuna -
I don’t think I need to explain that since I’m not a Democrat. I AM, however, rolling in the aisles over the fact that the only political battle that you Bush-loving Republicans can win anymore is over whether Bush is a terrorist or a murder. You guys must be pretty depressed that your ‘lasting conservative majority’ turned out to be a wet dream.
Lassie -
I like facts a lot. That’s why I said ‘one of the lowest’ and not THE lowest. I’m wondering why you don’t like reading because you were able to miss that even after you copied-and-pasted it in to your response. Genius.
But hey I’m really glad that we’re talking about how Bush’s approval rating isn’t quite so low as a few other guys in the past century. You girls must be soo super duper excited for 2008!
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 PM
On the up-side Johnny, Democrats can’t win unless they run as Republicans. The conservative movement is far from over. Liberalism, is almost dead.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Johnny,
You must be one of those ‘non-partisans’ from one of the George Soros groups. I love how Democrats and liberals are too chicken to admit what they are. That said, all this talk about Bush’s approval ratings makes me laugh considering the Democrats in Congress come in around 17% – the lowest in history! Considering they haven’t accomplished anything in the first six months – let alone 100 days – it’s no wonder!
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Michael you are chicken little.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Whoa! Major 9-11 twoofer infection here!
I’m sure they convinced you with their mounds of steaming, scarysmart “evidence,” right Michael?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I see Michael is at again with deleting posts. We’re on to you, Chicken Little…
June 24th, 2007 at 12:44 PM
And Chris…don’t you have an ambulance to chase? You are one blow hard…what’s it like being in the 29% club???
June 24th, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Uh… deleting which posts FT? Did you actually post something to be deleted? Or are you off your meds again?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Chestnut-get a life, man. You spend way too much time on this blog…small wonder you think like you do when all your information comes from the same place…don’t you have 4 hours of radio to listen to? I hear Michael calling you (lemming)…
June 24th, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Fine Tuned,
Don’t you have some welfare to collect? Or is George Soros paying you to post here?
See, I can be insulting too.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:37 PM
P.S. Finetuned,
If I’m a member of the 29% club, you must be a member of the 17% club. Or is it the two inch club…? Anyway, I digress.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I get my information from all over the the place FT. And I’m quite sure I’m better informed on every issue that some liberal excrement like you. … and I’ve got a fine life, thanks for your concern.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Andrew you moron. A lie is saying something you KNOW is false. That is not the case here. Bush was given intelligence that showed the probability was high there were WMDs. So the worse you can say is he drew an incorrect conclusion.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Keep apologizing for Bush and keep watching as your seats flip to Democrats.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Who is apoligizing for him. I’m stating a simple truth.
By the way Vern, after what the dumbocrats have pulled now that they are back in power, I’m betting a lot of seats will be flipping back to Republicans. People don’t like being taxed into poverty.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:56 PM
The democrats call President Bush “the stupidest president ever.” A sane person must ask himself how could, “the stupidest president ever” carry out the greatest military(9/11) operation against America, since Pearl Harbor and get away with it? How does that happen if President Bush is supposedly “the stupidest president ever?”
April 16th, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I think that people should stop using words like ‘nut’ and saying things like ‘these people were just let out of the insane asylum’. Put forward some logical arguments against those of the ‘conspriacy theorists’. Also, research BOTH sides of the debate and make note of direct rebuts. I find that the ‘official’ stories do a bit more avoidance than direct confrontation. I’m having a hard time finding solid arguments aginst conspiracies, not to say that there are not any out there. Watch the movie Freedom to Fascism on Google Video/YouTube. I think this was the most well-done video for a New World Order conspiracy instead of focusing solely on 9/11. As I said, make note of specific arguments and points made then look for them to be directly disproven (all facts and points to go with them). This is the only way to go about this debate. Shutting your eyes and ears and name-calling is foolish. JFK II may also be a good movie. Some of the facts I need to research and verify myself and I haven’t found any major faults or lies. If anyone can give me a sound and rational argument against conspiracy theories, I would appreciate it if you could tell me where to find it; I’m really looking for a good one but no such luck, yet.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 PM
President lindon b johnson declared war on north vietnam because of the gulf of tonkin attqacks, it is know now that they were STAGED ATTACKS! just like 911 was. Also, recently DICK Cheney was in a meeting where he discussed 12 different way to provoke a war with iran, one including painting us boats like iranian cruisers and having our boys shoot on the boats that were full of navy seals. this was reported by seymore hersch, one of the most credible journalist living today.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Well put Justin.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
These protesters don’t know what the truth is? Although I don’t agree that 9-11 was an inside job and actually think that is ridiculous, I agree that Bush was/is horrible and should be charged with War Crimes.
You think these people are wacko conspiracy nuts, I heard the same thing about the people who spoke out about the Iran Contra affair.