<p>against
but lol i thought u were talking about the band bush. anyone like the band bush(they're from england)?</p>
<p>I hate Bush. The only Bush I like is my own :D</p>
<p>Well I appreciate it that you do try and help out the soldiers. However, I am not talking about the average Joe here. I am specifically targeting the Democratic politicians who continue to meander about Washington, DC, blowing hot air about Bush. Yeah, I know you don't like Bush, so what? How about you tackle things that matter to the people. I'm not saying Republicans are exempt from dragging their feet, but Democrats are king when it comes to Iraq. </p>
<p>And yes, weapons inspectors did determine that Iraq could start up their WMD programs in a short amount of time. Here is a list submitted during a Congressional hearing by weapons inspectors:</p>
<p>[ul]A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment that was subject to U.N. monitoring and was suitable for continuing chemical and biological weapons research.</p>
<p>A prison laboratory complex that possibly was used to test biological weapons agents on humans. Kay said his investigations have shown that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were ordered not to declare the facility to the U.N.</p>
<p>Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in the home of an Iraqi scientist. One of the strains can be used to produce biological weapons.</p>
<p>New research on biological weapons-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin -- none of which were declared to the U.N.</p>
<p>Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have helped Iraq resume uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.
[/ul]</p>
<p>Quote:
"Speaking of soundbytes, here's one for you:
BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET!"</p>
<p>~Applause.~</p>
<p>
[quote]
*I hate Bush. The only Bush I like is my own *
[/quote]
Bolded for truth.</p>
<p>Everyone makes dumb quotes. Even that intellectual genius John Kerry.</p>
<p>"I voted for the war... before I voted against it"</p>
<p>OMFG EGGO ROFLMAOZEHDONG</p>
<p>Dont get me to quotes.If i bring in some Bush quotes, then you'll really laugh like crazy. So, dont get me there :D</p>
<p>primitivefuture..
i'd really like to hear some of ur quotes..</p>
<p>The Bush administration is rather corrupt, from my observations. Just look what's been happening recently - the Karl Rove scandal: Bush previously stated he would fire anyone even suspected of releasing Valerie Plame's covert identity, but is very lenient on Rove after sufficient evidence that he played in a hand in it. Look at the appointment of John Bolton to UN Ambassador - a man who has quite openly declared his vehement disgust with the UN, and who was strongly oppposed by the majority, so had to be given power underhandedly through a recess appointment. Look at the appointment of John Roberts to Supreme Court justice, a man who cannot be properly questioned because he has little record to go on, though the Republicans definitely know which way he leans. This is just some relatively minor things that have happened recently folks, but there's just too much evidence out there of the Bush administration's corruption. Their policies can be endlessly debated, but its the integrity of the administration that worries me the most.</p>
<p>^ ... I agree.</p>
<p>Your biases have obviously twisted these events to ways that suit your arguments. First of all, Rove never gave the name of the CIA operative. NEVER EVER. Even Democrats agree with this. He did not give any names, and that is the bottom line. Secondly, all indications pointed to John Bolton being confirmed as the UN ambassador. The Democrats were dragging their feet, and Bush used a perfectly fair clause to automatically confirm him. And lastly, John Roberts is not a huge conservative as some Democrats make him out to be. He is one of the foremost legal thinkers in the country, and most everyone respects him regardless of party. Sure he might slightly Republican, but that is the advantage for a President to be able to nominate a justice. Clinton did the exact same thing.</p>
<p>The whole Rove controversy has been blown out of proportion. I guess this is to be expected since Democrats have been itching to get back at us because of Clinton's many scandals. He has not even been charged with wrongdoing and the investigation is continuing. For some reason Democrats are willing to skip the charges, the whole trial, and convict him. The only facts I know of so far is that he did not reveal the name of the operative. Whether she was actually undercover is debatable. She wasn't exactly hiding. Having the spotlight on her husband's controversial stands inevitably invites curiosity, which is why I believe her cover was eventually blown. Novak has been way more involved in this than Rove, and I don't see him taking heat. </p>
<p>Democratic presidents have also used the recess appointment. Acting like it was an unprecedented move and calling it "underhanded" is showing that you display a certain double-standard. The fact is, that the majority was going to pass Bolton's nomination. The democratic minority was able to block it using fillibuster. That is their perrogative, but they shouldn't cry foul if Bush uses his powers as well.</p>
<p>The John Roberts nomination also shows the way the Democratic party is operating these days. A very distasteful ad was recently pulled which attacked John Roberts by stating he supported an abortion clinic bomber. The fact is, President Bush made a very good tactical move by nominating Roberts. The Democrats have searched high and low for things to attack this nominee with, and they have come up with little substance. Roberts will pass, albeit after the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee have their fun imposing a double standard on the nominee. Ginsberg did not give her stance on many issues, and Roberts doesn't need to either.</p>
<p>To those who have posted recently with opposing views, I do appreciate that you have presented arguments and supported them. The one-liners sporting nothing but insults is what burns me up the most.</p>
<p>P.S: I have read some of these so called Bushism's and I must admit some are pretty funny. I imagine I would make many misstatements myself if I had to make so many statements in front of the media.</p>
<p>Ok, just for some rebuttals:</p>
<p>Rove did not outright mention Plame's name. However, there was a long article recently in Time Magazine about this, and it appears what happened is Rove mentioned to Novak that Wilson's wife works for the CIA. I don't think it's that hard to connect the dots. In any case, someone in Bush's shoes who wants to make sure that justice is doled out rightly should be sharply critical of Rove, which Bush is definitely not.</p>
<p>All I have to say about our latest UN ambassador is: "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." - John R. Bolton.</p>
<p>As for Mr. Roberts, it's not right at all that the Justice Department refuses to release the records of 16 cases he handled during Bush Senior's reign that cover many hotbed issues, and would allow critics to more aptly judge his character.</p>
<p>In any case though, these are just minor things that happened recently. Sure, I have different interpretations of the same facts, but the point remains that this question of integrity keeps popping up over and over again while Bush has been in office. Just go to any bookstore, and it's amazing how many oodles of new books come out every month on various scandalous affairs Bush has done while in office. The Democratic Party is definitely not perfect, what with the bureaucracy and all, but there is much truth to what they say. </p>
<p>And for the record, I don't support ad hominem attack ads against any persons. But even more importantly, I certainly don't support secrecy of governmental affairs to its own lower level officials and representatives.</p>
<p>I was going to post but mit2007mit already won the thread.</p>
<p>Bottom line, the Dems need to fix their party. I don't agree with Bush on everything (ex: I'm 100% pro choice), but they have to run a decent candidate. If Edwards was running instead of Kerry, I might have voted for him. Edwards gave up his seat on the Hill, Kerry didn't! Why not? Running for president is a full time job. Where's the dedication?</p>
<p>I'm waiting for the Dems to run Hillary in 2008 after she gets completely dominated by Guiliani, McCain or Rice, and whoever wins has 2 terms (with the Dems making a slight comeback on the Hill in 2012), Obama will lead the return of the Democratic Party by taking the White House in 2016.</p>
<p>I'm for Bush.
He's no reagan, but he's ok.</p>
<p>I don't know why the Democrats have so much faith in Obama.</p>
<p>He's just a darker-skinned, slightly more exciting and loud Kerry in my opinion. Has anyone seen him speak other than that keynote address? He is boring, safe, and completely sterile. I have no idea what the big deal is about. He could never dream to be one-tenth the public speaker Alan Keyes is (his opponent in the senate race).</p>
<p>If Obama is the best the Dem's have got, then I will be a happy man for the next few election cycles.</p>
<p>.
Clarification:</p>
<p>I am neither against or for Bush. </p>
<p>Anyway, I appreciate the healthy arguments that you all are having about the polity of USA. And I also believe that your discussions will pave way for the strengthening of the values of Liberty and Right to Self-Determination of people in USA and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Keep the good points up, all of you.</p>
<p>=========</p>
<h1>SHABIN</h1>
<p>.</p>
<p>They have faith in Obama because they are desperately searching for a "poster-boy" for their party. The Republican Party has the likes of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani who most people like regardless of party. The Democrat party, however, has Howard Dean and (to a certain extent) John Kerry. Most Democrats don't even like Howard Dean, and John Kerry also invokes displeasure among some Democrats. Barack Obama on the other hand is well-liked among the Democrats and some Republicans like him too. His political skills are yet to be tested yet, but he is definitely going to be a face for the Democratic party whether he is a force on Washington or not.</p>