George "W"

[rotten]

Watches mel go stalk up on cisco and carls jr cheeseburgers [img]wink.gif[/img]

Dont be scared..
Most fears are worst case scenario.. not saying nothing will happen but its not likely. Even less likely it will happen to you.

[Moby]

I found this....

It's been going on for years...is it any wonder the middle eastern countries, that were once Arabia hate the west so much.

A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence
Sunday Times
August 22, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.

The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*

Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.

Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt's six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia's three million people with ninety thousand troops.

We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.

The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?

We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?

*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.

[Australis]

no wonder George W won't to agree to a debate with Saddam... maybe he's worried Saddam will bring up the fact that Reagan & daddy sold some of the chemical & biological agents (among other things) to Saddam in the first place... [img]redface.gif[/img]
Selling Saddam the very things they are now going to attack Iraq for possessing... talk about the ultimate in hypocrisy... [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
it seems pretty obvious now why the US and UK governments are so keen to "clean up Iraq"... after all... they are responsible for a large part of the mess in Iraq to start with...

excerpts from: US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
By Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, December 30, 2002.

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

if you want to read the whole article you can find it here..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...230buildup.htm

[Moby]

"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help us turn out the vote, after we've convinced the good Americans to vote, and while they're at it, pull that old George W lever, if I'm the one, when I put my hand on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not - to uphold the laws of the land." Toledo, Ohio, October 27 2000
•"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the internet." Arlington Heights, Illinois, October 24 2000

•"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defence system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace." Des Moines, Iowa, October 23 2000

•"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." LaCrosse, Wisconsin, October 18 2000


•"It's going to require numerous IRA agents." On Gore's tax plan, Greensboro, North Carolina, October 10 2000

•"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." In response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the first presidential debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4 2000 (Thanks to Peter Feld)

•"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." Saginaw, Michigan, September 29 2000

•"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." Redwood, California, September 27 2000

•"They have miscalculated me as a leader." Westminster, California, September 13 2000

•"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from." Detroit, September 7 2000 (Thanks to Michael Butler, Houston, Texas)

•"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers." Houston, Texas, September 6 2000


•"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." CNN online chat, August 30 2000

•"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." Ibid

•"I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking." Salinas, California, August 10 2000 (Thanks to Kris Sester)

•"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live." Cleveland, June 29 2000 (Thanks to Douglas Basford)

•"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." US News & World Report, April 3 2000 (Thanks to Alfred Stanley, Austin, Texas)

•"This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep the peace. That's what we were certain of ... You see, even though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. We're certain that even though the 'evil empire' may have passed, evil still remains. We're certain there are people that can't stand what America stands for ... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this, too: I'm certain to maintain the peace, we better have a military of high morale, and I'm certain that under this administration, morale in the military is dangerously low." The Washington Post, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 31 2000

•"The fact that he relies on facts - says things that are not factual - are going to undermine his campaign." New York Times, March 4 2000 (Thanks to Garry Trudeau)

"I 've got a reason for running. I talk about a larger goal, which is to call upon the best of America. It's part of the renewal. It's reform and renewal. Part of the renewal is a set of high standards and to remind people that the greatness of America really does depend on neighbours helping neighbours and children finding mentors. I worry. I'm very worried about, you know, the kid who just wonders whether America is meant for him. I really worry about that. And uh, so, I'm running for a reason. I'm answering this question here and the answer is, you cannot lead America to a positive tomorrow with revenge on one's mind. Revenge is so incredibly negative. And so to answer your question, I'm going to win because people sense my heart, know my sense of optimism and know where I want to lead the country. And I tease people by saying: 'A leader, you can't say, follow me the world is going to be worse.' I'm an optimistic person. I'm an inherently content person. I've got a great sense of where I want to lead and I'm comfortable with why I'm running." Interview with the Washington Post, March 23 2000

•"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have - he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." To reporters in Florence, South Carolina, February 17 2000


•"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." Iowa Western Community College, January 21 2000

•"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house". Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, January 15 2000

[Australis]

On the lighter side... this is what Terry Jones of Monty Python fame had to say about George W.. *L*

A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones

Letter to the Observer
Sunday January 26, 2003

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really p*ssed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult.
Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children.
Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

[Australis]

And now....... a word from John Cleese *LMAO* [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

Other Axis of Evil Wannabees - by John Cleese

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil", Libya, China and Syria today announced that they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil", which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran - Iraq - North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new Axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are just as evil . . . in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils . . . best at being evil . . .we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"An axis can't have more than three countries", explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussien. " This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil", forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil", while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the " Axis of Not So Much Evil Really but Just Generally Disagreeable".

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics ".

Canada, Mexico and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America", while Scotland, New Zealand and Wales established the "Axis of Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick". "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do", said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Counties Whose Names End in 'Guay", accusing one of it's members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

[rotten]

that was really funny

[Moby]

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX): “As long as [Saddam Hussein] behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him… In my estimation it is not enough reason to go in, that he does not allow weapons inspections…. I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."



Wesley Clark, former NATO commander in the campaign in Kosovo in 1999: “The United States cannot win single-handed, no matter how capable its military. We should forge international consensus on Iraq ...War must remain an option. It should be the last resort.”



Rep. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Vietnam veteran: “It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off. I try to speak for those ghosts of the past a little bit… We are the greatest power that the world has ever known. But we have limits, too. And these coalitions for peace, coalitions for change will be our future, the world's future.”



Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr (D-IL): “President Bush and some members of Congress are now pushing for a congressional vote granting legal authority for a `regime change' through a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. But the President needs more than legal authority, he needs moral authority, and moral authority can only come by building an international team to confront Saddam Hussein.”



Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “"President Bush has called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities. I call on the United States to assume ours by working with the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction by utilizing mechanisms such as the resumption of arms inspections, negotiation, regional cooperation, and other diplomatic means. We all agree that world would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, but I believe that we are better off still if we live under the rule of law and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. A preemptive, unilateral first strike would set a terrible international precedent. The question one must ask when confronting this doctrine of preemption is, where will it end? Which dictator will be next?"



Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa and Nobel Peace Prize Recipient: “The United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms.”



Norman Schwarzkopf , former general who led Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991: “If we invade Iraq and the regime is very close to falling, I'm very, very concerned that the Iraqis will, in fact, use weapons of mass destruction.”



Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to George W. Bush's father: “Don't attack Saddam. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken… There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of [Saddam’s] aggression.”



Retired Marine general Anthony Zinni, the former head of the US Central Command: “We need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of. It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.”


sources: USA Today, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, National Review, congressional web pages

[Genie!]

Just my opinion, and we all know opinions are like assholes everyone has one, my political views are "middle of the road", BUT here goes another "unpopular opinion".

I support George W. Bush to an EXTENT. I mean, I am scared as hell of war as well, and I don't like the idea of it, especialy since my boyfriend is in the army and in headquarters here at Fort Stupid *cough* I mean Fort Stewart, but if we DON'T go to war, what are we telling other countries??? YES, you can take whatever you want from us, you can bomb us, our cities, you can do ANYTHING you want to, to us and we will do nothing, we will sit by and just say thanks for the bomb hit. It's like the old saying, "You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything". If we don't go to war and stand up for our freedom and our rights here in America we will eventualy get to be like other countries where we aren't fighting with other countries, but we will end up fighting amongst ourselves. That's what other countries want anyway. They know we are America, freedom of speech and freedom of personal and political rights. The other countries want to see us at war with ourselves. If we are fighting ourselves then we will be too busy to care about what they do to us or what they take away from us.

On another note, I am happier with Bush than I was with clinton. Bush is actualy making war and taking care of the United States his first priority and dealing with Bin Laden and Hussein, unlike Clinton who couldnt concentrate on being a president for his worrying about getting blow jobs in the oval office and his sexual dealings with Monica Lewinski, Jennifer Flowers, and only God knows how many other interns at the White House. Clinton was too busy worrying about his sex life and getting blow jobs and then denying all his sexual antics to REALLY take care of the United States. When he was president he was fucking around, LITERALY.

I would much rather have George W. than Clinton. He might not make sense to some people, but atleast he is concentrating on what is at hand. He isn't ignoring the attacks by terrorists, he isn't backing down from Bin Laden or Hussein. He is being a president. What is he suppose to do, give any third world country leader a free pass to come and bomb us anytime they want to???

This is just my political opinion. It's not right, it's not wrong, it IS..JUST my opinion. This is still America and SO far thanks to presidents like Bush, we still have freedom to express opinions here in the U.S.

<font color="#0000FF" size="1">[ March 17, 2003 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Genie! ]</font>

[Non Phixion]

maybe if bush got his nob polished as much as clinton did he wouldn't be such a war hungry president.... but then again thats just my opinion