George Bush Signs Photo Gallery by n at pbase.com

George Bush Signs

see my latest gallery: Bush Won! https://pbase.com/kayakbiker/bush_won

Visit my blog: http://silencedmajority.blogs.com

George Bush, GW Bush, dubya, and Vice President, Dick Cheney. As depicted on signs of protesters.

At the end of the gallery are some photos of political posters from an exhibit at the Minneapolis Inst. of the Arts. I am not the artist who created those posters.

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALL

Bush stop graffiti 3	Bush Cheney PTSD	L Expose Bush.jpg	1_Village Idiot.jpg
1_Only Bush I trust is my Own.jpg	Bush eats babies.jpg	Asses of Evil.jpg	Portrait of death 2.jpg
No Bushit	Billionaires for Bush.jpg	W words.jpg	Bush Apocalypse.jpg

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALL

comment |

Kimberley Hannaman Taylor		15-Mar-2008 23:45
Jeez, I couldn't wait. I am FEELIN' THE LOVE MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS! YAYESS! I CAN FEEL IT! HALLELUJAH! I'd bookmark this page but I hate to direct traffic to the "patriots" rantings. It's not polite to deliberately make people sick like that. XXKHT

Kimberley Hannaman Taylor		15-Mar-2008 23:40
I've never seen so many comments! I'll have to bookmark so I can read them all. I saw a great bumper sticker today: "Fermez les Bush" I chased the car into a parking lot to get the pic (coming soon to a gallery near you) XXKHT

Guest		27-Feb-2008 02:30
bush should be in JAIL

thomas		12-Aug-2007 16:17
bush is a moron...

Guest		01-Feb-2007 02:29
Worst president ever!!!!!

Hodero		08-Feb-2006 21:26
You should feel like me.... http://www.pbase.com/image/55846291 good luck amigo !

EMangl		17-Jan-2006 03:09
global warming: http://www.devilducky.com/media/38792/

Guest		08-Dec-2005 17:12
Thought we could use a laugh! "The Ultimate Outsource Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India as of January 1, 2006. The move is being made to save the President's $400,000 yearly salary, and also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead the office has incurred during the last 5 years. "We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant" stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). Reynolds, with the aid of the Government Accounting Office, has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay" Reynolds noted. Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for sometime. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will be assuming the office of President as of December 1st. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center" stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President." A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem because Bush was not familiar with the issues either. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issues at all. "We know these scripting tools work" stated the spokesperson. "President Bush has used them successfully for years." Mr. Singh may have problems with the Texas drawl, but lately Bush has abandoned the "down home" persona in his effort to appear intelligent and on top of the Katrina situation. Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a résumé and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited practical work experience. A Greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience with shaking hands and a phony smile. Another possibility is Bush's re-enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. His prior records are conspicuously vague but should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Waco, TX for a month, before being sent to Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport's terminal and gift shop. Sources in Baghdad and Fallujah say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to be provided with details of his arrival so that they might arrange an appropriate welcome"

EMangl		04-Dec-2005 09:02
let him fall ! http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Dallas Hyatt		03-Nov-2005 03:40
Nice gallery!

Guest		15-Sep-2005 00:09
“Not One Damn Dime Day" - Jan 20, 2005 - Inauguration Day “ That is the most ridiculous thing you nuts have come up with yet. How about work hard to develop and support a “real” third party (not some bunch of wanna- be hippies, like those supporting the worthless Green Party) and make the changes you so desperately want the way the system was designed to work. All the time you spend spewing HATE SPEECH and getting your asses kicked by the police, (Tony Blair has the right idea) you could be organizing for a legitimate purpose. Get real, Get a life, and Get a clue...or are you all just a bunch of hot air, and stupid posters? Do the math!

Guest		07-Aug-2005 21:01
I always love it so when a bush booster tells me that because I don't stand up & salute whenever that weasel president makes one of his self-serving pronouncements,I am somehow doing this country"more harm than good"Bush has had almost six years to hunt down the real terrorist,Bin-laden,but he has opted instead to go after a relatively harmless Iraq,in the process alienating a lot of the rest of the world,plunging this nation further into debt,causing the deaths of almost two thousand soldiers,the wounding of countless others...This same Bush fraud has squandered our resources on an unwinable unnecessary war,instead of using our tax dollars to provide universal healthcare to our citizens,better economic and educational opportunities,ect.ect.ect...But of course better educational and better economic opportunities FOR ALL CITIZENS,as well as universal healthcare are all "LIBERAL'notions and are therfore unamerican..What is "patriotic"apparently,is to "amen"any numbnuts bloodbath that Bush & company require,rubberstamp any all breaks for the already very wealthy,,and salute the flag as it passes by on it's way into history's trashbin...

Guest		31-Jul-2005 18:46
I love the fact that having Bush in office drives the left so crazy. All these people with little else to do protesting because they believe it's the righteous thing to do. It's truly pathetic. "not one damn dime day"? another typical liberal scheme. but what the organizers of this day don't understand is that they are doing more harm to their country than good. Do you think it's good to shut down the economy doing more damage? You may as well sign up for Al Qaeda. Thank god there's no way anyone would ever go for any crazy scam like this. I don't know from personal experience but I can imagine it must be hard to be in the minority, when nobody else agrees with your viewpoints and people think you're crazy for the direction you want this country to take. I like the "inbred NASCAR" guy, who thinks only southern red-necks voted for Bush. Stereotypes like that got you in trouble in this past election didn't it? America has spoken, and they've said that this is a socially conservative country. I don't see any of these die hard liberals moving to canada or france. That's curious. I bet it's because this is the greatest nation on earth and we give them the freedom to vomit this hateful rhetoric daily and without consequence. They also benefit from the very system they criticize. Can you liberals get any more hypocritical? Good luck in '08.

Guest		12-Jan-2005 21:22
Get ovet it? As if you guys did. You hounded Clinton's ass for his 8 years in office and then some. Not One Damn Dime Day" - Jan 20, 2005 - Inauguration Day Help Make a Difference... Please mark your calendars now... "Not One Damn Dime Day" - Jan 20, 2005 - Inauguration Day Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target... Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now over 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home. There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No petitions to sign. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people. Please share this e-mail with as many people as possible.

Guest		08-Dec-2004 13:06
Dear Left Wing Loonies: Get over it, you lost. Despite all your efforts, despite the backing of Hollywood and the major media, you lost BIG TIME. Now it's time for you to stop the insanity and get over the fact that the majority of Americans do not agree with you or your agenda. George W. Bush is our president, we are a nation at war with a most vile and evil enemy, one of which we've not faced since the days of Nazi Germany. Please, either join us in this fight, move to Canada, or be quiet. However, if you insist upon continuing with your crusade to demonize President Bush and thus, disrespect our country, American patriots everywhere will be left with no other option but to deal with you as they may. By continuing to denigrate the leader of our country, as the world looks on, you are crossing the line. You are no longer the opposition; you have become the American Insurgency, our domestic enemy. How on earth can you side with an enemy that willingly kills the innocent and would just as easily kill all of us?

Guest		08-Dec-2004 11:25
Bush doesn't have to reinstate the draft because when your term is done the military won't let you leave. So you're screwed either way. Bush is still the idiot son of an asshole!

thank you, n		11-Nov-2004 18:46
It'll be nice for all of you anti-Bush people to be more like n and John Kerry to act graciously in defeat and unite as Americans. I have much respect for n for obviously not deleting any posts, even those that opposed his own opinions. We all want a strong and prosperous America and we should stand together for that purpose.

Red State		09-Nov-2004 00:49
Half of the country is ignorant! The other half voted for BUSH!!

Guest		05-Nov-2004 02:29
4 More Years...Move to Canada? get in line now !!!!!

HM1		04-Nov-2004 12:46
This is for Ted L., who wont let me response to what I sent him at: http://www.pbase.com/automat42/our_america Hi Ted! I am the one who posted the note you desided to headline on your site "God help us". I dont need to worry about being drafted. I am active duty Navy (15 years), serving in a Marine Corps unit, and yes I am going back to Iraq in March - we still have a lot of unfinished work there, and now that this election is over may be we can get it done. As for the draft - not going to happen! Its hard enough at times dealing with recruits who volunteer to join, the last thing we want is a bunch of undesirables slowing down our mission. The "draft" legislation, was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) issued a statement about the Democrats' proposal that he said was being considered in order to expose a fraud. "For months now, the American people have been subjected to -- and had their intelligence insulted by -- a manipulative, dishonest, and willful campaign of misinformation," DeLay said. "This campaign, which started as a whisper but has since been given voice by the leading Democrats in the country today, asserts without any evidence whatsoever that there is a secret Republican plan to reinstitute the military draft. "DeLay continued, "This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democrat Party, and everyone in this chamber knows it. It has one purpose -- to spread fear. To spread fear among an unsuspecting public, to undermine the war on terror, to undermine our troops, to undermine our cause, and most of all, to undermine our commander-in-chief ... in an election year." Kerry surrogates had been telling young people and parents across the country that Bush would reinstate the draft, despite the fact that both Bush and the Pentagon have denied that it is even being considered. All I can say is; it's over, your side lost, now put all the silly signs away and send the side show freaks home until next time. See you in FOUR more years!

Guest		03-Nov-2004 23:34
Hey Harrison, you show the true embodiment of Republican love for thier fellow American, and what you truly think about freedom, democracy and right to free speech and questioning of authority. Your ilk would have been right at home in the old Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany. I can see you all now, running the gas chambers like good little drone SS troopers, with your Bush sign emblazoned over where a swastika would have been. You call people a traitor for voting for someone other than Bush? You want to call ME a traitor to my face? No, I did'nt think so, since your not even over in Iraq right now fighting the good fight for your fearless leader, LOL. You may see some of us in the street, but that's a hell of alot better than being in a flag draped coffin!! Tata

Guest		03-Nov-2004 19:31
Traitor Bush won Your life will be on the street with those stupid signs. Good luck

Tim O'Reilly		03-Nov-2004 18:14
I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear. But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be. They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq. How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to. Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel. But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class. And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it. But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time. But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war. The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble. Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

BUSH WINS		03-Nov-2004 17:32
Kerry calls Bush to concede http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html

Guest		03-Nov-2004 15:29
It's over, face it your side lost. I know it’s gotta be rough for you right now. Hey, we’ve all been there. “You lose” are two horrible words when put together in that order. Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to reminded the American people of why Bush is needed as president was a cruel trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and the president was the only choice to defend us. Our Special Forces are going after him? Why did your side forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11, the American people did'nt. There he was, Michael Moore, all fat and rested with his videotape Army (hey, did you get the feeling that he had nothing in Florida or Ohio to videotape?) Speaking of his stupid movie - can I ask you a personal question before we part ways for good on Wednesday? Did you and your friends really think that piece of crap would help Kerry win? The people are much smarter than that. What a waste of your time and resources! Sure, I know what your pollsters told you, that the film had convinced some people to vote your side in. I just want you to know that was Michael's original intent. Funny things happen at the movies. Hope you get to see a few at the multiplex. It’s a great way to relax.

Guest		03-Nov-2004 15:17
Just great… 4 more years of Bush. A big thank you goes out to all of you inbred NASCAR fans who voted for this moron. I bet you thought you were voting for Bush beer. Duh! Just goes to show there’s not much of a brain trust south of the Mason-Dixon line. Enjoy your unemployment when your textile mills close down and/or your company moves YOUR Job to India.

Guest		03-Nov-2004 11:51
GO BUSH!! OHIO 100% of Precincts Reporting George W. Bush 2,777,645 - 51 percent John Kerry 2,632,547 - 48 percent NATIONAL 95% of Precincts Reporting George W. Bush 51% 56,732,387 John Kerry 48% 53,004,905

n		02-Nov-2004 19:56
re: gallery 414579 Bin Ladin is already bragging about how Bush fell right into his terrorist plot and about how he is bankrupting America. We are trembling with fear ----- we better vote for Bush.

Guest		02-Nov-2004 17:43
A John Kerry victory after the bin Laden tape is going to give Osama bin Laden bragging rights across the Middle East. You want to talk about creating a whole new generation of terrorists? After this bin Laden tape, if Kerry goes out and wins this election, bin Laden's going to be able to flex his muscles and claim credit for it throughout the Middle East, and they will have done it without firing a shot. Imagine what they will be able to do when they fire the next shots! Let's not let this happen. I cast my vote for Bush today. I hope most of us did as well.

n		02-Nov-2004 01:04
Hey Cowboy, Colin Powell, a straight shooter, says that the insurgents are winning in Iraq. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110104V.shtml REAL COWBOYS don't ride into the desert without water. n

Guest		01-Nov-2004 20:33
They call my President a "Cowboy" It used to tick me off when the Muslim detractors in the Middle East, or the socialist detractors in Europe, Hollywood and other cesspools of America called my President a cowboy; but the more I think about it, the more glad I am that he is. When I was a kid, cowboys were my heroes. Well, I mean the ones in the white hats, the black hats were the bad guys. There was Tom Mix, Buck Jones, Johnny Mack Brown, Hopalog Cassiday, Red Ryder, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, then later Marshall Matt Dillon, and others. Personally, I think Gene Autry could beat 'em all up, and then sing a song afterward to his girl friend. He was my favorite. What were common attributes of these legendary cowboys? Here are a few: 1. They were never looking for trouble. 2. But when it came, they faced it with courage. 3. They were always on the side of right. 4. They defended good people against bad people. 5. They had high morals. 6. They had good manners. 7. They were honest. 8. They spoke their minds and they spoke the truth, regardless of what people thought or "political correctness," which no one had ever heard of back then. 9. They were a beacon of integrity in the wild, Wild West. 10. They were respected. When they walked into a saloon (where they drank only sarsaparilla), the place became quiet, and the bad guys kept their distance. 11. If in a gunfight, they could outdraw anyone. If in a fist fight, they could beat up anyone. 12. They always won. They always got their man. In victory, they rode off into the sunset. Those were the days when there was such a thing as right and wrong, something blurred in our modern world, and denied by many. Those were the days when women were respected and treated as ladies, because they acted like ladies. Now as a senior citizen, I still like cowboys. They represent something good -- something pure that America has been missing. Ronald Reagan was a cowboy. I like Ronald Reagan, who was brave, positive, and who gave us hope. He wore a white hat. To the consternation of his liberal critics, he had the courage to call a spade a spade and call the former Soviet Union what it was -- the evil empire. Liberals hated Ronald Reagan. They also hate President Bush because he distinguishes between good and evil. He calls a spade a spade, and after 9-11 called evil "evil," without mincing any words, to the shock of the liberal establishment. That's what cowboys do, you know. He also told the French to "put their cards on the table" (old West talk), which they did, exposing their cowardice and greed. The Arabs are wrong. In the old West, might did not make right. Right made right. Cowboys in white hats were always on the side of right, and that was their might. I am glad my President is a cowboy. He will get his man. Cowboys do, you know.

Katie		01-Nov-2004 18:45
I know that is scary that the redskins lost yesterday. especially since bin laden endorses kerry by citing things straight from the democrats playbooks and michael moore's movie in his new video. hopefully that redskins myth can be broken for the security of our country because most americans wants a president with a spine.

Guest		01-Nov-2004 17:55
Uh oh.... the Redskins lost. You know what that means. See ya at the ranch Dubya!

Guest		01-Nov-2004 17:39
Simple questions - where does Kerry stands on the following? How would he pay for the massive government medical insurance he says he will provide? Taxing the rich cannot cover the trillions of dollars that will be needed. How many new troops will he send to Iraq, and where will they come from? What will he do to prevent more than 3 million illegal immigrants from crossing the border from Mexico each year? And why does he oppose gay marriage when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton? In addition, I would like to know why, in 1991, Kerry voted against removing Saddam's army from Iraq by force in light of the fact that at least 5,000 Kuwaiti women were raped by Saddam's brutalizers, according to the European Journal of International Law. I'd also like to know what he would say to Gen. Tommy Franks about Osama Bin Laden. Franks has said Kerry is flat-out wrong to accuse the Bush administration of "outsourcing" to "warlords" the job of catching Bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan. According to Franks, U.S. Special Forces were embedded with Afghan locals in the hunt for Bin Laden. Who's right, Franks or Kerry? Kerry has also been a staunch supporter of legalized partial-birth abortion. Why does he think 64 senators voted to ban the procedure? All these questions remain unanswered by the senator. Thus, his challenge is really built on the chaos in Iraq, not a publicly stated clear and present vision.

Colonel Sanders		01-Nov-2004 17:28
KERRY: "My friends, I want to make this clear to you. Our troops every step of the way, from the first moment, without even the body armor, without even the best equipment, they have done their job magnificently and with courage. The troops did their job, but the Bush administration failed to tell them what they already knew, what they, the administration knew, and what the international agencies already knew, that this site contained some of the largest quantities of the most dangerous explosives in Iraq. What do we hear now from this president on this important matter of national security? Silence." Why is Kerry out there all of a sudden doing tributes to the troops? It's because they've got their own focus groups and polling data, and they know that this idiot campaign of his last week to adopt the New York Times story that blames America for losing sight of these explosives is a direct insult to the competence of the U.S. military. He has to come out now and give this lame defense of the soldiers. "Oh, yeah, they're great soldiers. Well, they were great over there. The administration lied to 'em about what was in ammo dumps." Yeah, our troops, Senator Kerry, need to be told what's in an ammo dump. Our troops, the U.S. military, walk up to an ammo dump and don't know what's there unless they're told by George Bush. Right. It's like saying Colonel Sanders would not recognize a chicken ranch if he drove up to it. It's absolutely just lame and insane. This guy, if people were actually paying attention to what this guy says (and we hope that you are) is twisting himself in all sorts of ways and continuing to do so. He'll never be able to straighten himself out. And you want him to be your commander-in-chief? I don't think so. Get a clue.

n		01-Nov-2004 16:04
Bush is a leader who is certain, even when he is wrong. The weapons not being guarded in Iraq is a symptom of a war with poor planning and excecution. WHo pays? The ill-prepared troops, US taxpayers, and 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Guest, let's hear some praise of Bush's war on Terra after you read this and an article about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Maybe Bush should think and look at data before he goes off half-cocked with the goal to reorganize the world (and at the same time give lots of money to his wealthy supporters). Kerry Campaign: New 60 Minutes Report Reveals Shocking White House Failure to Protect Troops WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In response to new reports contradicting Dick Cheney's assertion that Iraq has been a "remarkable success," Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards challenged Dick Cheney to explain why U.S. troops in Iraq are still don't have the equipment they need to protect themselves in combat: "Dick Cheney does nothing but read scripted attacks on John Kerry in a desperate attempt to cling to power. What has he done to protect our troops beyond his empty rhetoric and hollow promises? Tonight, we heard yet again that our troops are still not getting what they need to protect themselves. As a former Secretary of Defense, he should have the courage to answer our fighting forces in Iraq who have been failed by his incompetence. Knowing that our troops are forced to defend themselves with plywood and sandbags, does Dick Cheney still believe that we've done 'exactly the right thing' in Iraq? "Dick Cheney, before Americans vote on Tuesday, you have an obligation to answer these questions. "Why do you keep saying our troops are properly equipped when that is patently false? Why are you forcing the families of our servicemen to send them body armor and other equipment to protect their lives? Why did you oppose reimbursing them for the costs of this equipment? How many Humvees still lack the steel plating they need to protect themselves from enemy attacks? What steps have you personally taken to ensure that troops on the ground have the equipment that they need?" IN OCTOBER, STILL "EXTENSIVE PROBLEM" WITH LACK OF ARMOR Still "Extensive Problem" With Lack of Armor for Military in Iraq. "When the 1544th Transportation Company of the Illinois National Guard was preparing to leave for Iraq in February, relatives of the soldiers offered to pay to weld steel plates on the unit's trucks to protect against roadside bombs. The Army told them not to, because it would provide better protection in Iraq, relatives said. Seven months later, many of the company's trucks still have no armor, soldiers and relatives said, despite running some of the most dangerous missions in Iraq and incurring the highest rate of injuries and deaths among the Illinois units deployed there. 'This problem is very extensive,' said Paul Rieckhoff, a former infantry platoon leader with the Florida National Guard in Iraq who now runs an organization called Operation Truth, an advocacy group for soldiers and veterans." (New York Times, 10/30/04) Military Vehicles in Iraq Have Unique Needs. "But the glaring problem for soldiers and families remains the vulnerability of trucks. In a conventional war there would be a fixed front line and no need for supply trucks to be armored. But in Iraq, there are no clear front lines, and slow-moving truck convoys are prime targets for roadside attacks. Gen. James E. Chambers, the commander of the 13th Corps Support Command, to which the recalcitrant soldiers who refused the assignment are attached, told a news conference in Baghdad: "In Jim Chambers' s opinion, the most dangerous job in Iraq is driving a truck. It's not if, but when, they will be attacked.'" (New York Times, 10/30/04) Military Mother Said Military Call Plywood-Covered Vehicles "Cardboard Coffins." "Kroft: but Karen Preston has been worrying a lot ever since last summer, when Eric returned home on leave and showed her these photos of the unarmored vehicles his unit was using for convoy duty in Iraq. Lacking the proper steel plating to protect soldiers from enemy mines and rocket propelled grenades, they had been jerry-rigged with plywood and sandbags. Preston: "these are vehicles that my son and soldiers in his unit had. They were called 'cardboard coffins.'" (60 Minutes, 10/31/04) Even Armored Vehicles Don't Have Proper Protection for Attacks Happening in Iraq. "Kroft: these pictures from Reuters television taken ten days ago, show what American patrols and convoys face every day. That was an improvised explosive device, or I.E.D.s, Fashioned by the insurgents from surplus Iraqi munitions and detonated by remote control. There have been more than 9,000 casualties in Iraq more than 1100 killed and more than half the casualties as a result of the I.E.D's. Yet the U.S. Military still lacks thousands of fully armored vehicles that could save American lives. Specialist Ronald Pepin is serving in Baghdad with the New York National Guard. Pepin: I've seen a lot of burning Humvees. They have no ground plating. So if you hit something underneath you, then its going to kill the whole crew, you know? And that's just something you have to live with.'" (60 Minutes, 10/31/04) Families Still Buying Body Armor and Other Equipment for Soldiers. "Before the 103rd Armor Regiment of the Pennsylvania National Guard left in late February, some relatives bought those soldiers new body armor to supplant the Vietnam-era flak jackets that had been issued. The mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a member of the regiment who was killed in April, bought a global positioning device after being told that the Army said his truck should have one but would not supply it. And before Karma Kumlin's husband left with his Minnesota National Guard unit in February, the soldiers spent about $200 each on radios that they say have turned out to be more reliable -- although less secure -- than the Army's. Only recently, Ms. Kumlin said, has her husband gotten a metal shield for the gunner's turret he regularly mans, after months of asking. This just points to an extreme lack of planning," said Ms. Kumlin, who is 31 and a student. 'My husband is part of the second wave that went to Iraq.'" (New York Times, 10/30/04) Army's Senior Neurosurgeon Said Army Using Wrong Helmet. "Earlier this year, with the insurgency in Iraq building and U.S. casualties mounting, Lt. Col. Jeff Poffenbarger, the Army's senior neurosurgeon here, became convinced the Army was making a mistake that could lead to American deaths. The Army had begun issuing a new helmet, dubbed the Advanced Combat Helmet. Made of a new type of Kevlar, the helmet is stronger and lighter than its predecessor. But the new helmet has a critical flaw, Col. Poffenbarger contends: It is about 8 percent smaller than the old helmet, offering less protection on the back and side of the head." (Wall Street Journal, 8/25/04) Helmet is Wrong Kind for Iraq Conflict. "In past wars, this might not have been a big problem. In infantry-style combat, soldiers typically are struck in the front of the head as they charge toward the enemy. But in Iraq, where the deadliest threat is remote-detonated roadside bombs, many soldiers are getting blasted on the sides and back of the head, says Col. Poffenbarger. In other words, they are getting hit in areas where the new helmet offers less coverage. 'I've become convinced that for this type of guerrilla fight, we are giving away coverage that we need to save lives," says Col. Poffenbarger, a 42-year-old former Green Beret." (Wall Street Journal, 8/25/04) LACK OF PLANNING BLAME FOR INSUFFICIENT ARMOR Lack of War Planning Blamed for Insufficient Armor. (60 Minutes reporter) Kroft: "there are still no good answers to those questions. Most of the vehicles in Iraq arrived there without armor plating because the Pentagon (news - web sites) war planners didn't anticipate a long, bloody insurgency. 18 Months after president Bush declared an end of major combat, the Pentagon is still struggling to provide the equipment needed to fight the war." (60 Minutes, 10/31/04) McCain Said Bush Tax Cut Made Less Money Available for Military. "McCain: I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States. This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war, I think, that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business as usual situation." (60 Minutes, 10/31/04) Bush Administration Didn't Plan for Conflict to Last This Long. "Critics who say that disparities and shortages persist fault the Pentagon for incorrectly assuming that American troops would return home quickly after the war. As a result, they say, little was done to equip and train the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers who were called to serve in Iraq and who now make up 40 percent of American troops there. 'I am really surprised that planners relied on the best-case military scenario,' said Jonathon Turley, a military historian at George Washington University Law School who wrote last year about shortages of body armor. He was then deluged with e-mail messages from soldiers complaining of such shortages, 90 percent of them from the National Guard and Reserve." (New York Times, 10/30/04) Military Leaders: George Bush (news - web sites) Sent Troops To Iraq Without Proper Protection. -- "In reference to armored vests, there was a shortage. This is a long-term problem that should have been fixed, however, well before the Iraq war started." (Brigadier General David Grange (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added) -- "I visited one of these units in December that was getting ready to deploy. That was December, they were deploying in January, and they were short basic equipment: radios, vests, armored Humvees, et cetera. We're better than that as a nation, and we're better than that as a military." (General George A. Joulwan (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added) -- "Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They were short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't." (General Don Sheppherd (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added) -- Could not "answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." (Gen. John Abizaid, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, in Washington Post, 10/4/03, emphasis added)

Guest		01-Nov-2004 14:42
Kerry's first response to Osama bin Laden's new videotape was to take a poll to find out what he should say about it. A spokesman for Kerry's campaign did not deny polling on the bin Laden videotape. Kerry is simply not a steadfast leader while Bush is.

Guest		01-Nov-2004 12:08
The Kerry campaign isn't backing away from the missing explosives story, even though details of the story have yet to be fleshed out. The original report written on Monday in the New York Times was co-authored by David Sanger, about whom John Kerry had this to say in July: "I believe if you talk with Warren Hoge [another New York Times writer] or you talk to David Sanger, you talk to other people around the world, they will confirm to you, I believe, that it may well take a new president to restore America's credibility on a global basis so that we can deal with other countries and bring people back into alliances.” The New York Times says its reporting doesn’t favor either candidate. But Bush backers note that the Kerry camp rolled out an ad campaign based on the Sanger story just a day after the story appeared in print, leaving open the question of whether the Kerry camp had advance notice of the story’s appearance. So does the New York Times use reportage to push a political agenda? The paper’s own, self-appointed critic addressed the question earlier this past summer. New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent asked, rhetorically: “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is. The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage, but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.)”

Guest		01-Nov-2004 03:24
The first obligation of the Commander in Chief is to NEVER put our young men and women and the country itself in harm's way unless absolutely necessary and as last resort...which Bush did NOT do when he started this farce.

Guest		01-Nov-2004 03:05
The first obligation of a commander-in-chief is to support our men and women in combat, which John Kerry failed to do a year ago when he voted against the funding they needed -- and which he is failing to do now by making accusations without knowing the facts. Our troops ought to be praised for the 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives they've captured.

n		29-Oct-2004 21:58
We learned recently that the US war with Iraq has killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Check out the search of "google news" on "100000" and "Iraq" (see the link below). Predominately foreign (outside the US) newspapers have this story in their headlines. It seems that the US' deep and abiding concern for the "freedom" of the Iraqi people has its limits. How many Iraqi women and children have to die before everyone admits this war is a mistake? http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=100000+Iraq&btnG=Search+News n

Guest		29-Oct-2004 19:17
To the lunatic Left and its camp followers, the president of the United States is a Nazi war-monger. Read their placards. Note the swastikas. See the Hitler-mustachioed cartoons depicting "W" as das Fuhrer. Modern brownshirts ransack Bush/Cheney field offices, fist fights break out in bars. Lawn signs are defaced, on both sides, targets of partisan wrath. The leader of the free world is the subject of hellish epithets and ad hominem smears. Is this the making of a Party of Hate? Let's devoutly hope not. Hot-headed partisans accuse President George W. Bush of all manner of vile skullduggery, appealing to baser instincts. Irrational, incoherent accusations stick, even among the intelligentsia, which should know better but rarely does, as it is predisposed to the Left's line and typically, on the wrong side of history. President Bush "willfully," says Senator Kerry, "misled Americans," his non-subtle subtext for -- let's face it -- a damnable liar. How the terrorists must exalt in this constant refrain. Hammering Bush for what Kerry himself believed, as did all intelligence services, is hypocrisy. Still, many on the Left naively, or disingenuously, buy into the charade. Dick Cheney is the lefties' whipping boy, too. Dour, portly, no prettyboy, he once was CEO, and thus reviled, of the most-libeled corporation of all times, Halliburton. This dastardly Republican pair, defending our nation -- successfully, i.e., absent further attack -- is called reckless, incompetent, wily, prevaricating, enemy of the middle class, kids, the elderly. They aim to bring back the draft, say Dems with straight faces (one authored the "draft bill"), and to "wreck" (willfully, no doubt) Social Security. These and other partisan myths are distractions to gain votes the old-fashioned way -- by sheer demagoguery. Hey, it often works, especially on the uninformed. Red herrings and myth-making go far beyond merely manipulating facts, called spin, to mangling the integral truth. It's that well-crafted, nuanced partisan lie that, endlessly repeated, evolves into the Big Lie. Soon news media (about which, more later) enshrine the lie in clever toss-away lines. "Credibility" is thus achieved. Bias and assumption are new realities. (Winston Smith's "memory hole," in Orwell's 1984, is alive and well? Inside joke, that.) As I write this, in pre-dawn hours, Bush is being accused on 7/24 TV of not standing guard -- himself, apparently -- over a huge Iraqi explosives dump. Then we discover -- via a blog, likely Power Line -- that's it a bogus charge. But well-timed. Seems it's a "story" repackaged by media to be Bush's October Surprise. Recall that DUI four years ago? Guess where Bush, after swearing himself back in, was supposed to have guarded those big-boom explosives? At Saddam's would-be nuclear bomb-making facility near Baghdad, that's where. (Ironic, no?) Such slanted "coverage" of current events must bring smiles to terrorists, brightening their caves, starting with bin Laden -- if he yet breathes. (Doubtful, some say.) Enemies of "Amerika" must revel in back-biting anti-Bush rhetoric. Doing their jobs, in effect, of unveiling "The Great Satan." Anti-Bush news leads al-Jazeera's every TV newscast. Nice to have friends in the media. Speaking of propaganda, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 still packs 'em in cinemas throughout the Middle East. How many Americans and other mere infidels have been murdered, or maimed, by the type of deceits -- 50 by one count -- spread by this film. Just wondering. (Note to self: During World War II, as recent as the Korean War, candidates rallied support for the old US of A. What a turnabout! Recall that Lt. (j.g.) John Forbes Kerry in 1971, before tripping off to Paris for side talks with the enemy, slandered our GIs still in Vietnam, and those being tortured as POWs. Yep. Times, they were a-changing.) What galls the political Left to behave so abominably? What is it, even metaphorically, about freedom and democracy for others, that sticks in liberals' craw, I wonder. Why their ill-chosen words denigrating our allies, including the New Iraq, and coalition GIs under fire? Why snide, smug putdowns of all who disagree with their view -- "right-wing idealogues" and worse, if such a creature slithers across Earth. This evinces a hubris not seen since the Vietnam war. While rallying and stopping ammo trains then, and hoisting VC flags, the young Left's mantra was, "Hell No, I Won't Go." Different tune today. New chant for the new Left. (No it's NOT. I just made it up.) This new chant would echo age-old pacifists' cries, and fuddy-duddy old anarchists, too: "No war, anywhere, at any time, for any reason!" What spawned the new Left? Is it a wacky branch of the Me [First?] Generation? You know, boomers all grown up, asserting their self-centered "rights" to no war, not at least in their time. Let George do it? And what stirs the Left to go bonkers over Bush? His moves to crush the enemy? Success in Afghanistan, routing the Taliban, corralling three-quarters of al Qaeda's core leadership? Next step, with maybe a little patience for taking sooo long, maybe it's taking out the Murderer in Chief bin Laden if he still lives. What's not to like here? My own pet theory about the Left's hangup with Bush is its near fanatical cynicism about love of nation, Old Glory, the full (with "under God") Pledge, plus "old-fashioned" values, like Real Marriage. None of which exist, I suppose, in the deftly deconstructed world of determinism. Whatever "It" is, I say the result -- for us political junkies, at least -- is disturbingly Hobbesian: Reason is trumped by passion. (See also, Machiavelli.) Alexander Hamilton picked up this theme in Federalist Paper #15, echoing Thomas Hobbes' realism: "Passions of man will not conform to dictates of reason or justice, without constraint," wrote Hamilton, clearly on to something. "Passions...without constraint." Aye, that's the rub. Except for a handful of loyal opposition (Senator Joe Lieberman comes to mind), liberal Dems' lack of constraint -- call it, civil discipline? - -inflicts damage on the republic. Dialogue, bipartisanship suffer, when parties -- "factions" in Hamilton's pre-party words, "kindle unfriendly passions . . . and excite violent conflict." When Senator Joe Biden calls a president Bush "braindead" [to a Delaware labor group], gets away with it, to the roar of unabashed applause, the die is cast, and the shoe fits. The Left turns ugly. Redemption will not be easy or quick. Effects of this mad tea party of an election will be far-reaching -- likely for decades, affecting all presidents, of any party. Partisan bickering will reach new levels of lunacy. Obstructionism, for its own sake, will rear up, creating stalemates. Mad as hell, generally magnanimous "Rs" will simply "not take it any more," same as that crazed anchorman Howard in the film Network. Controlling both houses, by wide margins, may make them virtual control freaks, unless they've chilled a little after enduring all the twisted, hateful rhetoric. Time will tell, and help heal the wounds of the Left's artful demagoguery. Heck, it heals nearly everything. Doesn't it? Good news: The sky does not fall. A mini-Second Civil War, red states v. blue, does NOT break out. Americans of all stripes still talk with one another, but not much about politics. Too dangerous. Fights break out sometimes. Fallout of seething rhetoric -- of both sides in truth -- does not bode well for rational argument. Impossible to hear others' well-held views when screaming at them, your cocksure bias shutting off coherent debate. Like little kids again, it's that shrieking "my candidate's better than yours...nah nah nah." What if Senator Kerry wins? No matter. His words, like Paul Bunyan's frozen cuss words, will return with the first spring thaw. Kerry and his surrogates' wild accusations will live again, perhaps to haunt them. (What goes around?) Regrettably, hot- headed elements of a steamed-up Right will blast the winners' distortions on nearly every issue. Elephants, it is said, do not forget. An incensed Right points at the biased Fourth Estate as the single main instrument delivering Kerry's win. In denial, as usual, MSM pooh-poohs this fact (of life?), nearly empirical now. And they repeat, as a chorus, the lines about being "perceived as," or "regarded by some as," a shill for liberal candidates. A vast segment of the public now is on to their game. Blogging is popular. Unbiased truths (small T) are THAT important to an informed electorate. What a Great Country! In four years, the GOP is loaded for bear. Fair play is tossed to the winds -- one is tempted to say, tritely -- of political expediencies. Because, well, demagoguery does work. Machiavelli was dead on. So was the dynamic duo, Hobbes and Hamilton, about partisan passions overwhelming reason. Power is the ultimate game in politics; Republicans have it now, and will surely wield it, for better or worse. Time for avenging? Revenge for all the distortions, the animus spewed by trash-talking the Bush administration, and "his" war? Let's devoutly hope not. Our republic deserves better. A lot better.

n		29-Oct-2004 18:07
Weapons at Al Qa Qa: The Iraqis took it before the war: Pentagon satellite photos The Russians took it: Pentagon Enter the video tape from KSTP: Ignore those stories: The US Army took it after the fall of Saddam. HAHAHAHA What about the yellow cake removed from Iraqi Nuclear facilities. Who took that?

Guest		29-Oct-2004 17:22
29 October 2003 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html

n		28-Oct-2004 18:39
A link showing still images of the missing explosives in Iraq taken by embedded reporters from Minneapolis. The US forces apparently went to the weapons base and then abandoned it to looters. Now the Iraqis are giving the weapons back one at a time. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 n

Guest		27-Oct-2004 22:56
Regardless of who wins the election, the first course of action should be to close the boarders and deport those that are here on expired visa's and such. If Dick Chaney want's to make the US a safer place this should have been done 20 years ago. Are we trully safer today than we were on 9/10/01 ???? I don't think so. Our current government can't establish control in a small country like Iraq how in the H$%l do you think they can protect the homeland. Wake up people it's not going to happen. Be sure to vote!

Guest		27-Oct-2004 06:45
Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004 12:05 a.m. EDT Dems Register al-Qaida Terrorists in Ohio Vote Drive In a bid to get out the vote for John Kerry, Democrat activist groups in Ohio have registered at least two known terrorists involved in a plot to blow up a shopping center. Nuradin Abdi, a Somali immigrant and admitted al-Qaida member who was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall, was registered to vote by the left-wing group ACORN, according to the Columbus Dispatch and the Ohio News Now TV Network. According to Ohio News Now, Abdi's name was added to the rolls by ACORN employee Kevin Eugene Dooley as part of the group's Project Vote operation. Dooley was indicted earlier this year on two felony election offenses: false election registration and submitting false election signatures to the Ohio Board of Elections.

n		27-Oct-2004 01:48
Is there gas price hanky-panky (i.e., price fixing) taking place before the election? http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18603/index.php

Guest		26-Oct-2004 19:18
At least your not deleting stuff like Ted L.

Guest		26-Oct-2004 17:28
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

Guest		26-Oct-2004 17:05
60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode. Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..." Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003]. The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive." An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story. The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday." CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged. "Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

n		26-Oct-2004 14:46
Thank you GUEST for your post; here is the BBC version of the NBC news report that you cite: US plays down loss of explosives The IAEA said the US-led coalition had been warned about the danger The US is playing down the significance of a UN letter saying almost 350 metric tons of high explosives went missing from an Iraqi base after the war. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there was no risk of nuclear proliferation because of the theft. It has become a big election issue after President George Bush was accused of incompetence by his Democrat rival. Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa. NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives. However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

Guest		26-Oct-2004 14:14
NBC News: Explosives Were Gone When U.S. Troops Arrived Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2004 NBC News reported Monday night that 380 tons of missing explosives were already gone when U.S. troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation in April 2003 – one day after Saddam's government was toppled. NBC should know. It had a reporter embedded with the U.S. troops when they arrived at Al-Qaqaa in April 2003. While the Kerry campaign blasted the Bush administration for "stunning incompetence" on Monday, many Bush supporters questioned the timing of the New York Times' report Monday about the missing explosives, just eight days before the presidential election. NBC News correspondent Jim Miklaszewski suggested a political motive as well: In his report on the missing explosives Monday night, he quoted one official as saying, "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political." According to the Times, the IAEA said it had warned the Bush administration about the need to secure the Al-Qaqaa facility before and after the war. Times' Bias Caught Again In a follow-up report on Tuesday, the Times did not mention the fact that NBC had an embedded reporter on the scene when the missing explosives were discovered - the day after Baghdad fell. Tuesday's report in the Times, headlined "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign," covers how the Bush administration "sought to explain the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq that American forces were supposed to secure." Bush's aides, Tuesday's article said, "tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives, whose disappearance was first reported on Monday by CBS and The New York Times." The Times' report portrayed the Bush administration as being on the defensive, trying to "minimize the importance of the loss" of the military explosives. The report noted that President Bush "never mentioned the disappearance of the high explosives during a long campaign speech in Greeley, Colo., about battling terrorism." "There are certainly some questions about when the explosives were missing," Kerry campaign adviser Howard Wolfson admitted on "Fox & Friends" early Tuesday. But Kerry's campaign is not expected to let the matter drop. In a press release late Monday night, the campaign accused Bush's campaign of trying to cover up its "failure" to secure the explosives. "Instead of distorting John Kerry's words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous," Kerry-Edwards senior adviser Joe Lockhart said.

n		26-Oct-2004 02:04
Werner, That's old news. When Saddam used those WMD against Iran, the REPUBLICANS ignored that incident, and Reagan forced the democrats to drop a bill that would have criticized Saddam. That's because the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Now, after we were attacked by SAUDI terrorists, are you saying it's time to get bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq because of something the Republicans ignored in the first place? Does Israel have WMD? Is Isreal's treatment of Palistinians causing problems with terrorism in the world? The whole picture is a lot more complicated than your photo of dead Kurds. The cost for each american is several thousand dollars for the war in Iraq. We discovered today that enough high powered explosives was placed in the hands of terrorists to cause 750,000 Lockerby-style plane explosions. Wrong course; wrong leadership. You can talk about 9-11 and old Saddam news forever. We need someone to address problems that are happening today.

doribell		26-Oct-2004 01:58
what powerful photographs it just goes to show the passion and energy in the last days of this election

Guest		26-Oct-2004 01:23
Show my why I should vote for Kerry? What will he do better? Look at Kerry's voting record....not good. I'm really uncomfortable with it. Why we are at war? Read this….http://www.pbase.com/wolfphoto/image/33325086

Guest		25-Oct-2004 20:42
Deception:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41072

Kerry is Consistent		21-Oct-2004 20:24
I really can't see how any true Americans can vote for this scum. This quote is actually from April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition. This is back when Frank Sesno hosted the program. This is the third paragraph of the story in the Washington Post today by Helen Dewar and Thomas Ricks. KERRY: "It depends what you mean by that, Frank. If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." (this is all about Bosnia when Clinton went in without the United Nations) So John Kerry thinks that American troops dying under the American flag is not justified, and is not worthwhile, but under the UN flag, then of course American deaths are justified. Kerry thinks that American deaths under the UN banner are permissible and honorable, American deaths under American flag only are not. This is the one place where his position does not change with the global test and wanting the UN to have veto powers over what we do. He wants us to be suordinates to the UN. He flip flops on everything else but the UN. He will consistently put the United Nations above the safety of our country.

Guest		21-Oct-2004 17:12
BTW, Minnesota and especially Minneapolis are full of nothing but a bunch of "Wellstone" supporters who don't even know he is dead yet! This is the worst crapping place I have ever lived and I can't wait for the day I am the hell outa here! Liberal whining idiots that import nothing but every refugee group from God knows where, so that our public schools here have to know 187 damn languages!! We speaka da English here, get it?? If you can't handle that, go back to wherever the hell you came from. But of course, I am just some bigoted moron to these liberal commies in this state!!! I am sure these morons here will vote for Kerry! They always vote for any damned Democrat there is!! Yeah, hope you all still love Phyillis Kahn, you know, YOUR Democrat legistlator CONVICTED of stealing Republican campaign literature in New Hope, MN. Yeah, and I see Bush signs all over the Twin Cities defaced by Democrats, but only on Kerry sign defaced. You know why? Because Democrats are liars, they constantly break the law, and have no respect for others! THAT'S WHY!!!! KOMRADE KERRY AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MINNESOTA!! Can't get much more Commie than that!! Yep! Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him!!! I am glad I wasn't born here! I and damn glad to tell people that too! Wake up you stupid Minnesotans and get a damn clue!! The rest of the country and world operates a little different and kinda has it figure out granolas bars!!! Yep. I living in a state of idiots!!!

Guest		21-Oct-2004 17:06
If Kerry wins I am moving to the Idaho Panhandle, buying a tank, and declaring myself a soverign nation so I won't have to live with you damn, liberal, granola crunching, commie friggin liberal bastards!!! Gonna go get my NRA card, my '67 GTO, and I am outta here you commies!!! Kerry sucks ass and so do all Democrats!!!!

n		13-Oct-2004 19:59
Dave: Can you say the same for Bush who threatened to veto the $87 billion allotment for the war in Iraq IF KERRY AND OTHER LEGISLATORS FORCED HIM TO PAY FOR IT RATHER THAN JUST ADDING IT TO THE DEBT. Dave, are you one of those bogus conservatives who believe in spend, spend spend, especially if it's for multinational corporations? Or are you one of the simple-minded lemmings who see everything in black and white as it's fed to you on TV commercials. The Bush cliches are getting old -- the voting public is seeing through the veneer. Bush can run, but he can't hide from: lost jobs, Iraq quagmire, lost respect in the world, and increased terror threat, loss of health insurance, loss in wages, etc. n

Dave		13-Oct-2004 19:34
I actually voted for Kerry before I voted against him.

EMangl		09-Oct-2004 20:52
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/goodtobeindc/frameset.html?track=0&ratingBar=off

Guest		08-Oct-2004 20:55
You guys obviously haven't seen who else is running for president besides Kerry or Bush, both idiots. Allow me to inform the masses of our multiple-party system: Go Here for the REAL Candidates Thank you for your time. ~Dave

Guest		04-Oct-2004 22:25
Bushes are for licking not electing!

n		03-Oct-2004 13:22
Interesting the titles shown on Yahoo, Iraq news: News Stories * Doubts about Iraq's aluminum tubes raised as early as 2001: report - AFP via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004) * Bush Aides Gave One-Sided View of Iraqi Data -- NYT - Reuters via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004) * European News Organizations Are Reducing Presence in Iraq - at The New York Times (reg. req'd) (Oct 2, 2004) * Setbacks Plague U.S. Arms Effort in Iraq - AP via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004) * Iraq Kurds demonstrate for independence - AFP via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004) * Italy Official Hints at Iraq Troop Exit - AP via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004) * Iraqis Blame U.S. for Massacre of Children - AP via Yahoo! News (Oct 2, 2004)

Zualiko		01-Oct-2004 16:26
This one is for "Guest" Reality Check: George Bush By TONY KARON @http://time.com The Claim: The difficulties facing the U.S. in Iraq are a product of foreign terrorists showing up to fight the America there. Reality Check: The U.S. military on the ground says that the overwhelming majority of the insurgents fighting the U.S. in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners. The Claim: Saddam Hussein "had no intention of disarming and was systematically deceiving inspectors." Reality Check: The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the U.S. inspection team has concluded that no such stockpiles existed when the war began, suggests that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, disarmed. The Claim: "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." (Khan is the Pakistani nuclear scientist who shipped nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya and possibly other states.) Reality Check: Observers generally concur that there's no way Khan could have acted without the authorization and support of Pakistan's military leadership, yet the U.S. accepted an outcome in which Khan received a slap on the wrist and wasn't even made available for questioning by U.S. officials, nor was any obvious attempt made to hold his superiors accountable — perhaps because of Pakistan's crucial role in hunting al-Qaeda. The Claim: President Bush says he tried diplomacy in Iraq, and went to war only when it failed. Reality Check: Numerous accounts from within the U.S. and allied governments suggest the Bush Administration had decided to invade Iraq even before it went to the UN in the fall of 2002, and had gone back to the international body only under pressure from moderates in its own ranks and from Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. The termination of the UN inspection process had nothing to do with its progress; it was based primarily on the window of opportunity for an invasion presented by the seasonal calendar. The Claim: Saddam Hussein would have grown stronger had the invasion not occurred. Reality Check: The decrepit state of the Iraqi military, its negligible pursuit of prohibited weapons, and the widespread internal rot of the regime that emerged after it collapsed showed that, in fact, containment had succeeded in weakening Saddam Hussein — although an enormous cost to Iraq's civilian population. The Claim: Bilateral talks with North Korea would be a fatal mistake that would precipitate the collapse of the six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program. Reality Check: Some of the key parties to those talks, including China, Russia and South Korea, are in favor of the U.S. talking directly to North Korea in order to provide Pyongyang with security guarantees that would improve the prospects for success in the six-party process. The Claim: Osama bin Laden is isolated, and 75 percent of his people have been brought to justice. Reality Check: Bin Laden may have physically sequestered himself, but he remains politically considerably more popular than President Bush in most of the Arab world. And despite considerable success by U.S. intelligence and allies in Europe, the Middle East and Pakistan in rounding up Qaeda operatives, allied intelligence services concur that al-Qaeda's ranks have swelled a lot faster than they've been denuded, particularly since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Claim: A free Iraq will help secure Israel. Reality Check: The bulk of Iraq's Arab majority, both Sunni and Shiite, hold the same hostile view of Israel as their brethren throughout the Arab world. While elements of one particular faction of the formerly exiled opposition (Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress) have suggested that ties with Israel could be established, there's no evidence to support the claim that an Iraqi government reflective of the popular will would be any warmer toward Israel than any of its neighbors. The Claim: We have 100,000 Iraqi troops trained now. Reality Check: There are around 100,000 people currently recruited to various Iraqi security forces, although the number who've been fully trained is closer to 20,000. And the number on whom U.S. commanders believe they can currently rely in frontline combat situations against the insurgencies is thought to currently number no more than 5,000. The Claim: We have 30 nations in our coalition; our coalition is strong. Reality Check: There isn't a single Arab country in the coalition, in contrast to the wide Arab participation in the Gulf War. And the U.S. and Britain between them provided more than 90 percent of the troops. Moreover, eight of the countries that initially joined the U.S. have since pulled out their soldiers, and more are expected to follow. Efforts to persuade Muslim countries to send troops have foundered.

Zualiko		01-Oct-2004 16:08
Guest, You have made valid points in your agruements to me. Agreed that it was George Tenet who had the intellegence flaws, who was hired by President Bush. But as President of a nation I think it is his responsibility to what ever descision is taken. You dont see any leader passing on the buck to avoid a responsibility. Which the president in this situation has done. And his past records on serving the country shows the same. Another point is if you claim that CIA stands by their claims with other international spy agencies that Sadam had WMDs why did they not point them out to the UN inspectors? Why did they not unearth them after the war? When Collin Powell adressed the UN stating with his 'mighty' claims that he new exactly where and how many were there. His and the presidents briefing to the UN and the world was that they were a 100% sure that Saddam had WMD's and was in cahoots with Al Qaeda in direct relations to Sept 11th. All of which I might add a Bi-partisan comitte (No matter how much you agrue was more of Democrats) proved wrong. I seriously belive that you and the current administration have all your views distorted. You seem to forget that the president claimed that we will bring the criminals to 9/11 to justice, we would hunt them down, and all that. What has happend in regards to that, have we all of a sudden got amnesia. The real hard fact is that we are in Iraq, fighting a war that is not even remotely close to the 9/11 issue. And in the claim you made; that Sadam wasl iked to support other terrorist movements. Even tough that were true, you seem to forget our wars primary and mainmotive was to finish off Al Qaeda. That was the prersidents promise to the nation on Sept 13, 2001 and till today he claims to make that promise. If he has given his word; why are we in Iraq, a country with no corellations to Al Qaeda. Does the president think the entire world has some sort of short attetntion span or ADD? We are fighting a war againt Al Qaeda first that is our prime concern to bring justice to the American people, not go get Saddam because he is an "evil dooer". Since you Guest, claim to have your facts all straight you surely know that we have more troops policing Iraq than looking for Osama. You saw the debate last night Sen. Kerry pointed out that when Osama was tied down in Torra Bora, what did the president do. He outsourced the job to the Warlords, mind it warlords that were fighting the american troops. If america has one of the best armies in the world, why didn't we send in our troops to get Osama? Even more strange why didn't President Bush reply back to that claim. Did you even watch his debate last night. It never answered any point, all he did was indicate that Sen. Kerry flip flopped? Why did he not answer to the american people that why is there more troops in Iraq than troops looking for Osama. Why has he not answered to why he out sourced the task to capture Osama when he was at Tora Bora? Dosent your locigal mind ask those simple questions? And lastly your so claims about Viacom being this and that is fine. But also you seem to forget FOX news and its stations in chaoots with the republicans. If you want to make claims make them fair and square. Nit-picking at some irrevelant detail is not our priority. And if you think your pathological liar in the white house is all right in his statements then its your loss!

Guest		30-Sep-2004 22:54
Even Jon Stewart whose a liberal is getting fed up with John Kerry's flip flopping.

Guest		30-Sep-2004 20:33
CNN's Late Edition, John Edwards, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country, and I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."

n		30-Sep-2004 19:33
Bush can't have a press conference without making gaffs. His entire image is fabricated by media companies as is the image of Kerry portrayed in Bush's negative ads. I have to laugh at the idea of your complaint about taking Cheney's words out of context. Bush's media whores are masters at the out-of-context quote. Cheney either isn't telling the truth now or he wasn't 18 months after Iraq War I when he said the US would get bogged down in Iraq if Baghdad were attacked. Which Cheney do you believe?????????? To me, he sounded pretty inciteful back in 1992 (see below, with no quotes taken out of context). Cheney (1992) "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. "And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." "All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said. "Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Guest		30-Sep-2004 17:02
Zualiko, our CIA made the claim that Saddam had WMD who director at the time, George Tenet, was appointed by Bill Clinton. The CIA still stand by their claims and it's also not only our intelligence community but other intelligence community around the world that believed and still believe Saddam had WMD. The 9/11 commission which was comprise of mainly Democrats stated that Saddam had no direct involvements to 9/11 but was definitely linked to Al Qaeda. Read the 9/11 Commission if you doubt me. Saddam harbor terrorists and subsidized the families of suicide bombers which is an act of terror in and of itself. Our country declared war on terror and anyone who harbored them whether they're linked to Al Qaeda or not. In this case Saddam was linked and support other terrorist movements. Yes you like other libs are cynical and desperate. n, what good is it to take things out of context and spin on it? why don't you get down to the real source about how Viacom media companies like CBS and MTV are misleading and scaring people about a draft that Republicans and the Bush Administration do not support. Dig a little bit deeper and you'll see that the sponsors are Democrats. Think about it, who wants disgrunted people on the battle field? The military will not be very effective if that was the case but "Rock the Vote" wants to scare young voters to vote Kerry under false presumption that Bush is going to reinstate the draft when in facts Democrats are behind the malicious ploy. Keep on being cynical and desperate.

n		30-Sep-2004 16:46
Cheney quote after the first war in Iraq: "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many." Flip Flop. n

Guest		30-Sep-2004 16:38
Now matter how you libs cut it, you still sound cynical and desperate.

Zualiko		30-Sep-2004 13:56
Ok, guest and Don and all other blind people, We know that John Kerry and congress agreed to go to war, and all the republicans in the hill go sing mighty songs about it and about Kerry being a flip flopper. You, Guest seem to me missing the whole point to why Kerry and majority of congress said yes was because of the strong (wink wink made up) claims that the current administrations made that Saddam had WMDs and was a close buddy of Osama. Which was a blatant lie. Well based on what the administration fed to congress any sane person would have voted for the war. Common sense dictates that a war is necessary, but a war based on a whooping pack of lies! Now thats a Flim Flam not a Flip Flop. And to top all this off even after all the evidence shows that the administration had lied, lets see what has happened. NADA! An invasion and scores of deaths were let me see... based on a gut feeling that Mr. Hussein is an "evil dooer". Then what about Kim in N. Korea, he sure must be the devil himself.

n		30-Sep-2004 10:06
Cheney Flip Flop. Interview with Seattle PI after that FIRST war with Iraq: "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. "And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guest		30-Sep-2004 03:47
If one accepts the view that the criteria for presidential greatness is the ability to confound one’s political opponents by stealing their issues and outsmarting them at virtually every turn, by that measure – from tax cuts to education reform to the war on terror to his domestic spending priorities to his mid-term election victories – if political success equals greatness, then George W. Bush is a great president indeed. Here is the playbook for most of these political photo sites: Crazy Liberal Idea #1: Bush Is a Moron Crazy Liberal Idea #2: Bush Is a Puppet Crazy Liberal Idea #3: Bush Is a Fanatic Crazy Liberal Idea #4: Bush Is Hitler…Only Not as Talented Crazy Liberal Idea #5: Bush Isn’t Protecting You Crazy Liberal Idea #6: Bush Wants to Bankrupt the Government Crazy Liberal Idea #7: Bush Is a Cowboy Crazy Liberal Idea #8: Bush Is a Liar When taken as a whole, these “crazy ideas” indicate the irrational nature of the Bush haters – that they can simultaneously hold contradictory opinions of the man: Is he a moron and a puppet controlled by others? Or is he a dangerous fanatic? Why would his fanaticism be dangerous if he is controlled by others? Sounds like desperation.

n		30-Sep-2004 02:51
A hip-hopper debates G.W. Bush: http://slambush.net/video/index.html

n		30-Sep-2004 02:11
A respected, life-long Republican doesn't understand Bush: Why I Will Vote for John Kerry for President By John Eisenhower http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004U.shtml n

n		29-Sep-2004 23:59
Kerry gave the president authorization -- a leverage, if you will -- to get Saddam to comply. It was a threat that worked. The inspectors entered the country. Don;t you know how to bluff in poker? The vote showed unity behind what everyone thought was a reasonable, sound thinking president. The megalomaniacal Bush used the authorization to pursue his own evil plan to change the middle east while making money for his corporate friends. A Two Fer, in his book. Unknown to him, because he doesn't read or understand nuance, the plan was flawed in every way. Even Bush Sr. wrote in his autobiography that he stopped the war when he did because Iraq would have become a failed state if the US had toppled Saddam. He was right! What does Bush call it? A "catastrophic success." A "brilliant, failure." The Iraqis have freedom alright. They have total anarchy, and the US is responsible for law and order in that country. Bush broke it; he bought it.

Guest		29-Sep-2004 23:04
last time i checked john kerry voted to go to war as well.

n		29-Sep-2004 22:03
Why didn't Bush state that he was going to war immediately then? Why did he say he was planning to work diplomatic channels to exhaustion? Legislators asked him to get the world on board --- Bush didn't. Bush was wrong. Bush is the flim flam man. Saddam handed over 1000s of pages of documents related to WMD. Did the administration read all of them? The weapons inspectors were in the country. Saddam said he didn't have any weapons to turn over -- and HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. Pre-emptive war is what the German Nazis did at the beginning of WWII. The US can do better than that. Bush has brought SHAME to this mighty and proud nation.

Guest		29-Sep-2004 21:23
Lie #1: The Rush To War. There was no rush to war. There were twelve years and seventeen resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with the 1991 cease-fire agreement that he signed, which specified that he must completely disclose all his weapons programs and materials to the UN. He never did so. The UN Security Council unanimously issued resolution #1441 in November 2002, which gave Iraq one month as a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", or face "serious consequences." Saddam still did not do so. Rather than "rush to war," President Bush waited three more months for him to acquiesce, giving him further "last chances." At that point, walking away and not forcing Saddam to disarm by force would have destroyed the credibility of both the US and the UN, and Saddam would have won a major victory over both without a shot being fired. No statement or warning by the UN or the US would have ever had weight again.

n		29-Sep-2004 19:26
Guest: UNREAL: Kerry didn't flip-flop; Bush Flim-Flammed. Bush said the authorization"symbolizes the united purpose of our nation ... We will face our dangers squarely and we will face them unafraid. "But he noted although the US Congress "has now authorized the use of force" with this resolution, he has not ordered the use of force. "I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said. BUSH SOLD THE AUTHORIZATION AS A MEANS TO PUT PRESSURE ON SADDAM FOR A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION, BUT WE HAVE LEARNED THAT HE PLANNED TO GO TO WAR FROM THE BEGIINNING. HE DIDN"T GIVE WEAPONS INSPECTORS A CHANCE, AND SADDAM COULDN"T GIVE UP WMD THAT HE DIDN"T HAVE. BUSH LET CONGRESS AND THE COUNTRY DOWN WITH HIS ATTACK ON IRAQ SHORTLY AFTER THE AUTHORIZATION AND WITHOUT EXHAUSTING DIPLOMATIC PLANNING. THAT"S WHAT KERRY IS CRITICIZING. APPARENTLY THE ISSUES ARE TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY OR YOU ONLY LISTEN TO FOX AS YOUR SOURCE OF NEWS. HERE IS MORE OF WHAT AN ARTICLE FROM THAT PERIOD SAID: Passage of the resolution came with entreaties by lawmakers from both parties for Bush to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before using military force. The Bush administration had hoped the congressional action would fortify the US- and British-backed effort at the United Nations. n

Guest		29-Sep-2004 17:16
Unreal. An advance item in the Early Briefing from Bulletin News Network on John Kerry’s interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer reveals yet another flip-flop of goliath proportions. When asked whether the war in Iraq was worth it, Kerry reportedly responded, “We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.” ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? The Yak reminds faithful readers of John Kerry’s August 9, 2004 remark at the edge of the Grand Canyon. When asked whether he would support the war “knowing what we now know,” Kerry replied, “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” What does John Kerry know today that he didn’t know six-and-a-half weeks ago other than his numbers have tanked?

Guest		28-Sep-2004 11:28
http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

n		28-Sep-2004 02:52
Guest: you are so literal, just like Bush. One approach would be to fly Iraqis to Europe to recieve miltary training. If the US had the right diplomatic approach, the oil-rich Arab states would be more willing to participate. You might be willing to pay high oil prices and support the Iraq war with your taxes and debt, but I want international help. A fresh start is needed. Iraq is broken and Bush, the arrogant man who broke it, has placed many obstacles in the road to peace in stability in the region. 90% of the world is against Bush AND THAT MAKES DIPLOMACY VERY DIFFICULT.

Guest		28-Sep-2004 01:27
Bring on those Allies, John.... No French or German turn on Iraq By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington Published: September 26 2004 21:13 \| Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13 French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2. Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

Guest		27-Sep-2004 08:17
BUCK FUSH!!!!

Christopher Wheeler		27-Sep-2004 00:22
Great collection! Interesting how certain signs regularly re-appear at different times and places (see: http://www.pbase.com/csw62/nyc_protest_signs) Thanks for sharing yours!

n		25-Sep-2004 16:25
The situation in Iraq: http://www.bushflash.com/year.html

n		18-Sep-2004 00:19
I believe what Alan meant is that the US should be more introspective about what the long term consequences are of US foreign policy. If the US is fighting a global war on terror and the majority of world is nervous or in disagreement, maybe the policy should be re-examined. Maybe US news media are sugar-coating the Iraq war, and focusing too much on unrrealistically postive statements from the Bush administration about its policies. Wouldn't it be nicer for US citizens to say that their country represents a beacon for democracy instead of an occupying force in a Muslim country? To say the the US must act with military force regardless of how the action is peceived in the world is a near sighted policy. We are all citizens of the world. Although tactical goals may be met by going against world opinion, the long term consequences are not likely to be favorable for US interests.

Guest		17-Sep-2004 23:02
Alan you're crazy if you want the rest of the world to determine our president.

Bush must go		16-Sep-2004 18:44
Bush say's things are getting better..... maybe at the ranch, but not in IRAQ! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016743/

Alan		12-Sep-2004 06:28
I forgot my linhttp://www.alanjackson.com/

EMangl		10-Sep-2004 09:34
WMD's anyone ? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1301434,00.html

For Don and his bild friends		09-Sep-2004 20:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm So the entire world must be crazy in wanting to remove Bush.

n		09-Sep-2004 18:51
I believe that President Bush should finish up his National Guard duty in Iraq. He used political connections to get into the Guard during a month when 2000 US troops died in Vietnam. He played the system to avoid his responsibilities, disobeyed direct orders, and didn't fulfill his duties. If he hadn't had political connections (to "sugarcoat" his perfromance evals" among other things), he would have been called up for active duty. Instead, someone let him slide. I wouldn't want to send my sons and daughter to Iraq to fight for a chicken hawk --- someone who says "Bring IT ON" when others are in the line of fire; someone who started a pre-emptibe strike policy that is bankrupting the nation morally and economically.

Guest		09-Sep-2004 18:12
Stan: "15,935 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes - an average of one every 33 minutes." "Deaths from Flu: 63,730 annual deaths for influenza and pneumonia" (NVSR Sep 2001) It definitely does hurt to lose a thousand men and women who served our country proud but it doesn't come nearly as close to those we lost at home to our annual fight with drunk driving and the flu. So I guess now you are going to want to get rid of President Bush because people are dying left and right from common illnesses and idiot drivers. I would rather lose 1000 brave souls fighting for our freedom instead of sitting on the sidelines waiting for a war on our soil which would cost millions of American lives. Quit whinning and support our troops and our president for having the courage to make tough decisions, even when it's the right decision. Otherwise grab a gun and stand your post since you think you can do a better job, Stan

Stan Marsh		08-Sep-2004 22:46
1000 of our boys and girls dead in Iraq! it's great to see how much better off we all are for it, especially the iraqi's coz they love how we "liberated" them...

Guest		08-Sep-2004 17:45
Record $422 billion deficit predicted. 422 billion reasons why Bush needs to go!

Guest		08-Sep-2004 12:37
Bush..... MIA 2004, just like in 1972 - 73.

No More Bush		08-Sep-2004 09:58
For W. Tracy….. Plan…. ??? This moron has had four years to actually do something. His plan is to tell everyone that the economy is strong, we have turned the corner, added jobs, etc. Look at the facts, none of this is TRUE! Everything has gone in the wrong direction under his watch. He is such a BAD President, it’s almost criminal, and he should be impeached. His only plan is to increase the wealth of the top 1% of Americans and F&^k the rest of us. I for one don’t like getting screwed….. maybe you do! As a country we can’t afford four more years of BUSH and his band of thieves. W = Wrong One Term and Done, Just Like Dad! Get out and VOTE!

Guest		08-Sep-2004 03:41
No More Bush, Go on bush's web site an download the plan-he certainly has one and if you watched the speech you heard it outlined. When you are done with that get over to: http://www.pbase.com/wtracyparnell/bush04 For a debate.

Guest		08-Sep-2004 03:37
The king of all "deleters" is Ted L. http://www.pbase.com/wtracyparnell/bush04

Guest		08-Sep-2004 01:16
"Don Northup" should be the last one to mention free speech, since he promptly deleted my (very civilized) comment from his Bush-butt-kissing gallery. I suppose free speech is only reserved for conservative war-mongers. What a country!

Guest		07-Sep-2004 22:56
http://www.agendaforamerica.com

Fact for DON		07-Sep-2004 16:47
The Economy Part of Bush’s plan is to spin the economy as on the way back, turned a corner, and even if it isn’t, Clinton left the recession anyway. None of this is true according to any non-GOP expert, yet this remains so under-reported that all we are hearing is Bush saying everything is great and the slightest blip of progress is not presented with the overwhelming failure this president has presided over. Here are the FACTS: The economy needs to create 150,000 jobs per month to keep up with new job seekers. July created 32,000 jobs. The 1.5 million jobs created over the past year that Bush hypes so much only keeps up with the new seekers. Bush will need to create 900,000 new jobs before Election Day, just to get to ZERO jobs created under his watch. 362,000 new filers for unemployment last week alone. 4.7 million bankruptcies in the first three years under Bush. Since June 2000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of adults considered "not in the labor force" - those who don't have jobs and are not looking for them - has grown by about 4.4 million, to 66.6 million. 45 million families without healthcare. Three straight years of increase in the number of families living in poverty. The top 1% holds 40% of the wealth in this country. Bush has stopped using an independent economic agency that has tracked recession start and end dates for 40 years because it placed the recession within his term. Instead, he simply moved the date back so it would fall into Clinton’s era, with no proof or basis in fact. The inescapable truth is that the economy is an unmitigated disaster. The coverage of it is equally catastrophic, as they allow Bush to play it up without pointing out the glaring contradictions.

For Don and Tracy		07-Sep-2004 14:10
lets all hope that Don and tracy looses therir jobs and then wait for the glorious bush - their savior help them out with jobs that pay. Even then their blindness will never change.. word from the wise.. "Idiots seldom differ!"

Guest		05-Sep-2004 19:52
Don N. And W. Tracy are just two old fat body's who don't have a clue. But it's mindless idiots like them that scare the hell out of me. While the GOP has no plan to tackle the real issues other than bash the DEMs or anyone else that could disrupt their revenue stream. I see Bush is taking credit for the 144,000 jobs that were created in August. Let's see .... we gain 144,000 jobs that pay an average of $10.00 / hr, and we lose 1,000,000 high paying jobs that average $25.00 / hr. You do the math. Bush is still the idiot son of an asshole any way you slice it. As a country we can't afford four more years of this moron. Maybe when Don's company shuts down and he's out on the street, he might wake up and see that GW is a moron and is killing this country. Maybe GW will let Don shovel shit for him down at the ranch, since GW spends more time away from Washington than any other President in U.S. history! One Term and Done, Just Like Dad! Get out and vote!

n		05-Sep-2004 16:34
The sanitized galleries promoting Republican interests are just like most of our corporate run TV news stations and newspapers. Bush, in his acceptance speech at the conventon, bragged about freeing the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. He also said the US is safer. These statements have not been challenged. Is he telling the truth? In today's NY Times, there is an article about how US soldiers control less of Iraq each day -- this has been happening for some time now. Also, August was one of the deadliest months for US soldiers since the war began. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/weekinreview/05filk.html?hp http://icasualties.org/oif/ Afghanistan has become a drug factory for heroin that supports terrorism. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0901-22.htm Republicans would argue that news such as I referenced here is bad news and that opponents of Bush want bad things to happen. I call it reporting BUSH's RECORD.

Guest		05-Sep-2004 14:30
Don is a funny one. Instead of making a gallery about why Bush would be great for another 4 years in the white house he makes a tribute gallery to a dead former president (who everybody knows was a dumbass who was famous for reading speeches of a teleprompter and posing for pictures .... as shown so beatifully by Don).

Guest		05-Sep-2004 05:05
Don, At least n allows dissenting views in his guestbook. More than can be said of "freedom-loving" you.

No More Bush		04-Sep-2004 09:55
I see that W. Tracy is just as confused as Don N. After watching the convention, it only solidified what I already knew, the GOP has no plan or answers to the top concerns of our nation. One term and Done, Just Like Dad! Get out and vote!

Guest		04-Sep-2004 02:06
http://www.pbase.com/wtracyparnell/bush04

Don Northup		03-Sep-2004 23:07
case closed

n		03-Sep-2004 21:26
Don, here is your message to me. Did I misinterpret it? I don't think so. By responding to your message, I am placing information about Bush's drunken adventures and other issue-related posts about GW Bush's record. Is that your plan? ******************************************************************** If you remove that ladies personal 29-AUG-04 attack it would be cool. delete ll my remarks afterward. that lady has had to have personal hate galleris against pbase members deleted by slug. she is the worst sorry for the double posts...I forget the http here. just delete those as well if you like thanks -don *************************************************************************************

For Don N		03-Sep-2004 19:44
Bush..... One Term and Done! Read, Repeat! Read, Repeat! Get it you moron.

Don Northup		03-Sep-2004 18:52
I asked you to delete the straight flame and personal attacks from pbase members posing as guests. You preferred to delete my comments and leave the flame instead. You are a funny one, n.

Don Northup		03-Sep-2004 18:50
You are full of bs n, I did not regret any of my responses. I would post them here again if I could!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

n		03-Sep-2004 15:12
Alabama Campaign Wives for Truth: George Bush wasn't in Cambodia during Christmas nor was he in Viet Nam..... George Jr sent out of Texas by father as a 'drunken liability' Gary Younge in New York Friday September 03 2004 The Guardian The US president, George Bush, was transferred to the Alabama national guard during the Vietnam war because his drunken behaviour was a political liability to his father in Texas, the wife of one of his father's former confidants revealed yesterday. Linda Allison told the political website salon.com that throughout the time Mr Bush was in Alabama she never saw him in uniform and had no idea he was supposed to be in the national guard. "Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston." Asked if she had ever seen him in uniform Mrs Allison said: "Good Lord, no. I had no idea the national guard was involved in his life." Mrs Allison is the wife of the late Jimmy Allison, a former political consultant and newspaper owner from Midland, Texas and one time confidant of the Bush family. Motivated by pride in her husband and pique at the manner in which the Bush family discarded him once they believed he was no longer useful, the interview is the first she has ever given. On Sunday the former lieutenant governor of Texas Ben Barnes will admit on the CBS primetime news programme 60 Minutes that he pulled strings to enrol Mr Bush in a unit of the Texas national guard known as the Champagne Unit, because it had so many sons of prominent Texas politicians and businessmen. Mrs Allison said that in 1972 her husband received a call from Mr Bush's father asking whether he could find a place for his son on a Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama. Mr Bush Sr was the US ambassador to the UN at the time and his son's drunken and occasionally loutish behaviour was becoming an embarrassment. Mr Allison agreed to take the errant Bush son as his deputy in a Senate campaign to elect the Alabama Republican Winton "Red" Blount. Once he had an official reason to be in Alabama, Mr Bush Jr transferred from the Texas national guard to its Alabama counterpart, although beyond one dental examination there is no proof that he showed up for any service, even though it was only a part-time posting. Mr Bush was subsequently given an honourable discharge. Most involved in the Senate campaign recall Mr Bush Jr turning up late, boasting about how much alcohol he had drunk the night before and then going home early. "After about a month I asked Jimmy what was Georgie's job, because I could never figure it out," recalled Mrs Allison. "I never saw him do anything." Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited .

Guest		03-Sep-2004 07:38
Don can't be helped n. He's got such double standards it's just not funny (well it is because it is easy to wind him up). His devotion to this issue is almost scary. Reminds me of that famous line from a movie (forgot the name) with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson " ....you can't handle the truth ...." Only two more months of Bush and Dick !

n		03-Sep-2004 03:29
I posted the following link about George W. Bush's record to Don Northup's Photo gallery about John Kerry. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746 Mr. Northup deleted it and asked me not to post "spam bs" to his gallery. I will honor his request and not post again to his site. I allowed more than 80 of his posts to my gallery and deleted more than 60 of them at his request after he regreted his responses. Instead of visting his site, read this gallery to hear both sides. No whitewashing, no brainwashing here. This is the real "no spin zone."

FACT		02-Sep-2004 13:51
FACT! Bush has presided over a 94 percent decline in the federal budget surplus -- that's $5.3 trillion gone in the first 2 years of his term.

Guest		02-Sep-2004 02:51
what the u.s. needs is another civil war!

No More Bush		01-Sep-2004 23:29
For wee Willy.... Bush has already put us is in a mess that will take a decade to recover! I'll repeat for those of you with an IQ below 50..... ONE TERM AND DONE, JUST LIKE DAD! Have someone who can read and understand this explain it to you!!

Tim		01-Sep-2004 18:43
The resume' Bart presented pretty much sums it up. All of those facts are indisputable. If that is what you want from a President, by all means vote for Bush (and I know you will). If you want a President that is intelligent, articulate, a REAL uniter, and some one who really served his country in the military (I served 20 years in the US military, so I know real military service when I see it!), vote for Kerry. To me, the decision is an obvious one.

Guest		01-Sep-2004 14:23
Your boy Kerry is gonna lose miserably and you guys are scared sh.tless! I am LOVING this!! Vote for President Bush and save this country from a mess that it would take a decade to recover from!!

No More Bush		01-Sep-2004 11:01
One Term and Done, Just Like Dad! Give this moron the boot!!! Get out and VOTE!

Sensible Realist		01-Sep-2004 08:57
Your tainted "facts", I mean the ones that weren't obviously dreamt up by you are quite interesting. But you actually view them all as negative, huh? hmmmm... I don't. But it's no wonder a liberal whimp would... you're AFRAID OF G.W. Bush! This is the first man in the White House since Ronald Reagan with brains AND a set of cohunas. I would fight for our country under him any day... would you?

Guest		01-Sep-2004 02:26
Thanks Bart indeed. I told Don before. You reap what you sow. The Truth will prevail and there it is ......

Guest		01-Sep-2004 02:17
RESUME George W. Bush The White House, USA EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available. MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam. COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader. PAST WORK EXPERIENCE: I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO, Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: I changed Texas pollution laws to favour power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history. With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT: I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her. I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government. I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the record for the fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television. I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August 2001, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Centre attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. I am t he first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in wartime. In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfil my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. RECORDS AND REFERENCES: All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004. PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW

n		01-Sep-2004 02:00
I'd like to thank BART for his link to BushFlash (below). The information at that link is not well known. If it were, more US citizens would question the foreign policy of their government. Policies that make no logical sense unless one stands to benefit financially from these policies. http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html Bart -- you also have some nice photo galleries!

Guest		01-Sep-2004 01:28
Don complaining of cleaning up the mess on his boards ??? Well Don. If you sow a mess you will reap a mess. The Truth will prevail !

n		01-Sep-2004 01:12
At Don Northup's request, I have deleted nearly 60 of the comments he has contributed to my gallery. He complains about the time it takes him to clean up HIS gallery -- well, he should start having some compassion for others. This is Republican "tell everyone we are compassionate colonialists week." He should be setting the example. btw, I saved all of those comments he made to my gallery, and if he wants to dominate my gallery again with arguments about his gallery and to debate the merit of his galleries, I will repost all of those comments here.

Guest		01-Sep-2004 00:46
More on this mess: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Guest		01-Sep-2004 00:32
Move to Iraq, you communist

ukexpat		31-Aug-2004 21:51
Can GWB actually write his own name or does one of his henchmen do it for him?

Bill Shockley		31-Aug-2004 20:57
Would you like pancakes for Breakfast Mr president or do you like waffles....waffles...waffles....waffles???? "when NBC aired an interview in which he was asked if the United States could win the war on terror and he answered, "I don't think you can win it." He added, in the interview, "I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." Bush himself said in a radio interview with talk show host Rush Limbaugh, "I probably needed to be more articulate." " whose the waffler now!!!

Guest		31-Aug-2004 15:08
Got a message in my inbox " Read Message spam me again 30-AUG-04 and you will be reported so notpost to my galleries, you have abused your priviledges profile for Don Northup (minoltaman) " You are a good one talking about spamming Don ! You are the spam meister (or is it the spin doctor). No spin doctor can help your beloved GW now ! hahahahahahahahaha. Luckily for you it will rain after the elections too :) Keeps you occupied and thank god for that!

Don Northup		31-Aug-2004 14:35
I love the quality of posts this gallery gets. Mostly ignorant flame by guests. http://www.fixthingsnow.com for some genuine debate

Donsucksass		31-Aug-2004 13:48
Don may be you should take your head out of your arse then may be you will be able to see the truth.

Guest		31-Aug-2004 05:27
Hey I think Don is asleep now. Go comment on his galleries. He likes that sort of stuff :)

Awol		31-Aug-2004 04:49
http://www.bushwhackedusa.com/awol.html

M.M.		31-Aug-2004 04:42
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-08-26

Guest		31-Aug-2004 04:38
Time to wake up, little old man: Don Northup 29-Aug-2004 06:10 This will be my last post to this gallery Don Northup 29-Aug-2004 06:50 I'm out. Now I have made my last poet here.

Don Northup		31-Aug-2004 04:35
this gallery only draws BOGUS guests faceless buttplugs

Donna Southoff		31-Aug-2004 04:29
Don Northup 29-Aug-2004 06:10 This will be my last post to this gallery Don Northup 29-Aug-2004 06:50 I'm out. Now I have made my last poet here. Don Northup 30-Aug-2004 21:13 My comment section is open to pbase members with galleries only. (Translatation: Only compliments are welcome) Don Northup 31-Aug-2004 01:10 blah, blah, blah

Guest		31-Aug-2004 03:04
Secret of Dubya's success: A major factor in his success is Dubya's apparent mediocrity. The man is at best a lackadaisical administrator, a "big picture" guy who delegates all of the detail work to subordinates and only wants to be bothered with final yes-no decisions. He's a weak public speaker, underprepared for debates and press conferences, clearly uncomfortable citing specific facts, figures, and sometimes even proper names. The man also appears to be congenitally undignified, evidently incapable of going ten minutes without his trademark smirk or a full-blown shit-eating grin, regardless of the situation. All of which combines to make him seem much dumber than most elected officials. Even many of his most ardent supporters presume that Dubya possesses an I.Q. bordering on 100. But -- counterintuitive as it may seem -- this idea is actually comforting to his political base. These are people who would like nothing more than to believe that the problems of governance are easily solvable, if only we can somehow avoid overthinking them. One of Bush's biographers put it this way: "There is a group of people who feel that '[the President of the United States should] be smarter than I am on just about every issue I can think of.' But there is also a large group of people who don't feel that way. They want the President, in this modern era, to be something they can relate to. Someone who they don't think is intellectually intimidating. Someone who isn't really lost in the big fog of intellectual ideas and the world of words." Ultimately, these voters are working from a gut feeling. Their assumption is that all we really need to clean up the mess in Washington is somebody possessing the courage of his convictions, and a healthy appetite for some old-fashioned hard work. And although neither of those criteria actually applies to George W. Bush, he manages to fake them well enough.

Guest		31-Aug-2004 02:59
Hey Ron ! Another comment deleted from your site supposedly open for comments (well here it is again). "Everybody knew he was a dumbass. Ronald Reagan was famous for not understanding how government works and not particularly caring about it. His job was to read speeches off the Teleprompter, shake hands with foreign dignitaries, pose for pictures, and maybe go out and visit a flag factory or a steel mill every once in a while. Otherwise he was busy sleeping in, eating jellybeans, and watching television. Read more in the link below. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/

JD		31-Aug-2004 02:41
August 25th, 2004 2:15 pm Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard / USA TODAY WASHINGTON - At a time when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group of retired naval officers who say he lied about his combat record in Vietnam, questions about President Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard remain unresolved: (Related item: Bush urges end to TV attack ads by outside groups) Some of the documents about President Bush's military service documents still have not been made public. • Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots? • What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama? • Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years? The White House has released hundreds of pages of records, but the files released so far haven't answered those questions. Since the documents were released in February, at least a half-dozen news organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom of Information Act. In an e-mail to USA TODAY last week, presidential spokesman Dan Bartlett said: "The president has authorized the release of his records and we are complying with all requests. Some are taking longer than others, but all will be addressed." Past military service and qualifications to be commander in chief have become a central theme in the 2004 presidential campaign. Questions about Bush's record predate the current campaign. The apparent gap in his Guard service first surfaced before the 2000 election, when The Boston Globe reported that Texas Guard commanders were unable to account for Bush's whereabouts from May 1972 to April 1973. Bush has not said what he did in the Guard during that period. Aside from a statement by a former Alabama Air Guard officer who said he saw Bush report for duty there in the fall of 1972, the only evidence he was at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama was a record of a dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, at the base. Bush said in a TV interview in February that he would make all his military records available. That month, the White House released more than 400 pages of Bush military records, including some duplicates, and said the documents were a complete catalog of his personnel files. But some documents still have not been made public. The White House did not release Bush's medical records from his Guard files but allowed a group of reporters who cover the White House to review them for 20 minutes. They found nothing unusual. Kerry released some of his military records earlier this year. He has also declined to release his complete medical records but showed them to reporters as Bush did. Since February, the White House has banned all Guard and military commanders outside the Pentagon from commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Act office. The Pentagon last week responded to a 4-month-old request from USA TODAY for additional records from Bush's files by sending another copy of documents that were released by the White House in February. The documents do not address the unexplained year in Bush's Guard service or his decision to stop flying. The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this summer requesting copies of Bush's military records stored in a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought information that might explain why Bush did not take his flight physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama in the fall of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.

JD		31-Aug-2004 02:38
August 30th, 2004 1:23 pm Fmr. Lt. Gov. 'Ashamed' of His Role in Getting W. Out of Vietnam Ben Barnes, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, says he's "ashamed" of securing George W. Bush a position in the Texas Air National Guard in 1969 so he could avoid serving in Vietnam. Barnes, who was the Texas House Speaker at the time, says it was a recent trip to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., that led him to the realization that aiding the children of rich donors, including President Bush, in their efforts to avoid service in Vietnam was "the worst thing I did." Bush has repeatedly denied having had any preferential treatment in getting into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam.

Don Northup		31-Aug-2004 01:10
blah, blah, blah...watch the convention. Lindsey, McCain, and Rudy up in a few minutes...after you hear them, you will know why GWB is the man. cspan, foxnews or msnbc...don't be afraid

JD		31-Aug-2004 00:50
If the election were held today we project the following results. If Nader is on the ballot Kerry wins the presidency with 301 electoral votes. Bush places second with 215 electoral votes. States lacking sufficient polling data to determine a winner: Colorado, Virginia Kerry wins the popular vote with 55,271,960 votes (49.52%). Bush places second with 53,556,759 votes (47.99%). If Nader is not on the ballot Kerry wins the presidency with 291 electoral votes. Bush places second with 225 electoral votes. States lacking sufficient polling data to determine a winner: Colorado, Virginia Kerry wins the popular vote with 55,411,661 votes (49.65%). Bush places second with 53,691,949 votes (48.11%).

JD		31-Aug-2004 00:47
Jeez Don. Has it stopped raining ? You know you can create "the illusion of rain" with a garden hose too. Why are you waisting your time like this. Go out and should some more drops. They are soo much better to look at then your ramblings and tribute to bad actors like Reagan. Why do Americans worship actors soo much ? Arnie for president ? What do you think ? You know what happened the last time a guy from Austria got too much power ?

Jason C		30-Aug-2004 22:31
Great photo's. Get out and vote so we can get this moron out of office. One term and done!

defisctuff		30-Aug-2004 22:17
are you a moron Joseph(donstinks@sonsucks.com you know nothing about communism cause you would not its the left not right you moron right hint hint left wing communism

Don Northup		30-Aug-2004 21:13
Hey guest, I have a comment section, it is just not open to faceless, nameless, cowardly guests like yourself. My comment section is open to pbase members with galleries only. for the record

guest		30-Aug-2004 21:13
Cool gallery, thanks for taking the time to post it! I think all of the images speak for themselves. It's amazing the level of wackoness that the left has these days. I doubt they represent even 10 percont of Americans. This is a great day!

Joseph		30-Aug-2004 20:51
You chicken Don Northsuckup no wonder you dont have a comment section on your dumb Pics

Joseph		30-Aug-2004 20:49
Don should go suck on some eggs. prefferably dick chenys or bushs eggs. his dumb right wing mumbo jumbo is not wanted on PBASE.. plus his stinking pictures sucks bad. Dude go live in a comunist country.

Ted Levin		30-Aug-2004 19:10
love your gallery. The neocons are just followers. They don't know how to think for themselves. I was called a nazi by a neo-con at the march in NYC. I think he got the facts wrong. Fight Bush.. Fight Fascism.

Guest		30-Aug-2004 19:10
AHahahahah 'Rick', you slay me.

Don Northup		30-Aug-2004 18:31
Russert say's bush 278 kerry 260 as of yesterday. After the convention Kerry will continue his downward spiral as bush will start to stretch his legs out on this one. GWB is doin the full 8.

Rick		30-Aug-2004 17:31
All I have to do is look at the people holding the signs to realize they aren't to be taken seriously. Do you know why liberals go to rallies and get together for protests? Because they have to. If there isn't someone telling them what to think, or feel, or do; then they would certainly wander around like lost sheep. I have yet to meet a liberal that has been able to articulate a free thought which wasn't regurgitated misinformation that they heard in the latest Michael Moore movie or coffee shop. When you begin to discuss the pure facts with them it always turns into an argument about right-wing propaganda. Last I checked though, the labor and census departments yearly statistics are not propaganda, but a tool to judge progress and direction. Fortunately for us GW was elected and the economic numbers are better now then they were under Clinton.

Guest		30-Aug-2004 17:25
Bush eats babies? Isn't it the Dems that always vote to give women the right to slaughter? And it's wrong for Bush to protect and go after oil, yet the Dems enjoy the luxury of filling up at the pump, yet bitch because the prices are too high. Yet if he were to drill for our own resources the greenpeacers would condemn him for detroying the land. Bush a liar, yet Kerry changes his story at every campaign stop just so the listener get an ear full of what they want. Oh it was sooo wrong for Bush to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Well if your mom, wife or daughter is ever being raped, don't call Bush to protect you. It would be considered evil to come to your aid.

Don Northup		30-Aug-2004 17:10
You forgot to thank the libs for the vulger obscene comments and you deleted quite a few facts on the election, boss. cheerio

n		30-Aug-2004 16:10
Thanks for commenting on Don Northup's and my gallery. I provided the photos and he added the many, artful comments.

Marcel de Jong		30-Aug-2004 05:23
Great gallery !

Don Northup		30-Aug-2004 03:26
I dunno if I would be that confident. The last few days ol' swifty has been slipping bigtime in four key battleground states. By the time the election gets here Kerry will be but just a memory and it may not even be close. GW is doin the full 8. cheers

JD		30-Aug-2004 01:54
N, keep up the good work. It appears to be working. See the attached link :) http://www.race2004.net/

Don Northup		29-Aug-2004 15:21
Stealth, Nope...I went to Nuclear Power School in Orlando, Florida. I was stationed on a guided missile cruiser loaded with a bunch of Nukes. I believe building parking lots would be more effective than whatever you propose. I sure hope the small tactical nukes are ready soon. These weapons will be quite effective in wiping evil of the face of the earth. Overwhelming force is the sure way to save American's lives while destroying evil. No since using a peashooteer when you can use a cannon.

Don Northup		29-Aug-2004 15:11
Who exactly is supposed to photograph state fairs, carnivals, concerts, high school events, cheerleader competitions, graduation ceremonies, football games, plays, musicals, carnivals, festivals, etc, etc, etc? Who is supposed to take the pictures for the posters, the programs, the families, the kids, the event programs,the school, the yearbooks, etc, etc, etc??? You better start yelling at a million other people if you do not like my pictures, starting with every local newspaper and school in the country. I feel sorry for you guest. You are a sicko. cheers

Sniper666		29-Aug-2004 15:10
It’s obvious that you know nothing about military tactics or stealth.

Don Northup		29-Aug-2004 15:03
Guests opinions are usually completely worthless here at pbase. You are just a faceless coward that is afraid to login for fear of showing yourself to be on the wrong side of everything. Guests posting personal attacks are complete cowards and totally worthless here at pbase. one man's opinion

Sniper666		29-Aug-2004 14:43
And to think I served my country and saw friends die to protect the freedoms of a dim witted twit like Don Northup so he can enjoy the freedom to take photo’s of under-aged girls.

Guest		29-Aug-2004 14:29
Nice anti Bush Photo's.... Keep it up!!! I see Donny Boy (Don Northup) has removed some of the comments written in HIS comment section. It must be hard for him to hear the truth let alone understand it. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.... Reagan the best President....Pleeeeze. Wasn't our last recession brought on by Reaganomics!!!! If you're not a multimillionaire... The GOP has no use for you and could give a rats ass! They only come around near voting time!! F&^king Maggots. GW has been to our state 7-8 times this year, where in the hell was he in 2000, 01, 02, 03??? As usual MISSING IN ACTION !!! Back home on the ranch. It's the economy, stupid!!! ONE TERM AND DONE, JUST LIKE DAD!

James Lundy		29-Aug-2004 05:20
Hey Don Northup, Remember me ol buddy? Remember how mad you got at me for mentioning your name in a gallery that you had posted in? Well all I have seen you do is post other peoples names and belittle others work. No two way streets in your neighborhood eh? Don you are a sad little man that likes to take up skirt photos of high school girls. You perv pedophile! And this really hurts me to fuss with you since you are such a strong supporter for Bush. It hurts me to know that I and MY Party have people like you in it Don. Sad! You are a bully among a quiet commuinty of artists Don, there is really no place for you here at pbase. Now Colors remember when we talked about Don bashing me and misunderstanding me when I kindly mentioned his name in another gallery? Don't ya feel silly for defending him? And not taking my word about him being the aggressor? I wish you all a good night, I choose not to enter a political debate on a artist's site because it is simply un-necessary. I will make my case in the voting booth.

Guest		29-Aug-2004 03:12
Don still does NOT understand that his GALLERY is BOGUS and does not adhere to the Pbase CREDO (original works). Jesus can someone get a club and beat him over the head? Maybe it will sink in.

Don Northup		29-Aug-2004 03:08
I forget you hate our american heroes as well. You like babykiller signs instead. you go girl...you got it goin on

Don Northup		29-Aug-2004 01:01
You gallery inspires debate. It appears the left just likes to yell, scream, shout and hate. The right seems to be presenting the facts....hmmmm.

n		28-Aug-2004 23:21
Well said? Don't you mean "broken record"? Some of you are posting the same thing over and over again. Are you robots? Are you programmed? Many of the comments in this gallery bring to mind the movie "Invasion of the body snatchers" (1956).

Guest		28-Aug-2004 18:37
Bush is... a) A frontman for the time-honoured machinations of US imperialism b) A genocidal terrorist that has murdered tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis for oil c) Attempting to build a facist state in the US d) No different from Kerry or e) ALL OF THE ABOVE

NoMoreBush		28-Aug-2004 11:25
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc http://www.rawstory.com/ One term and done...... just like Dad.

Guest		28-Aug-2004 01:14
Bush is a fucking idiot and mongoloid. If he was a "successful" oil business man, do you think he would have run for Govenor, let alone President. ANSWER: No. Ask yourself, is GW the best this country has to offer? GW stated that he doesnt even read newspapers. I can only imagine the last book he read......hint: "My Pet Goat" (while 3000 people were dying in utter agony)

Guest		27-Aug-2004 21:14
Wow, is this the same set of people with different signs or different rallies. Well, what can you expect when the president of the minority party (re-count drama) is ruling - the majority are bound to be pissed off. Even though Bush seems to have won by dishonorable tactics, if Gore were the president, as he should have been, then there would be signs saying similar things about him as well - you can never please all of your subjects. So Bush went to war!

Guest		27-Aug-2004 20:13
I have hesitated to jump into this from a political point of view, but I think I will jump in from a fairness point of view I think I must. After reading all of the posts on why the political galleries where removed and the claim that this one is more art than politics does not hold. The title of this gallery is Bush signs, if it were not political then there would be both pro and anti bush signs. The fact that there are only anti-Bush signs is very telling and if in fact the decision has been made to remove political galleries from pbase then this one should go with it. Lets either allow them or disallow them but any policy/law which is not applied consistently and fairly is neither law nor policy it is oppression. Just my 2 cents worth, Robin

Guest		27-Aug-2004 20:07
YOou DemoCRAPS may as well face it, Bush WILL be re-elected. Kerry WILL lose, part of that blame is beacuse he chose Edwards as a running mate....BIG BIG mistake for Kerry, not that choosing anyone else was going to help him. You people just don't get it, the citizens of America, ther REAL Americans are sick and tired of the CRAP the Dems sling and the low moraled, red-neck, trailer trash way of running the country. The Republicans are FINALLY starting to bring back some respect and some diginity to the United States of America....problem is you losers like the MUCK that you're in too much to appreciate it.

Don Northup		27-Aug-2004 19:33
guest, thanks for disregarding the content of the previous posts and your "bravo!" to a bush hate gallery...not!!!!!!!!!! and you forgot this is an ART site too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! one persons art can is/can be another's religeon and or politics and vice-versa remember about the eye of the beholder? free speech? fairness and equality? I did'nt think so.

Guest		27-Aug-2004 18:28
you're my hero n!!!---you guys argue too much--this is a photo website not political!

Don Northup		27-Aug-2004 16:28
Please get your facts straight N. This the opener o a post to the forum by the OWNER of pbase addressing this issue!!!!! _________________________________ slug Posts: 334 Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:18 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I removed five politically oriented galleries from the popular galleries first page. this had nothing to do with copyrights, simply the fact that politics were dominating the popular galleries. ______________________________ You see, straight censorship!!!!!!!!!! Now inmy gallery I have 150 pieces of ORIGINA ARTWORK done by me. This artwork contains thw votes and quotes of John Kerry. I also have posted uspubdom images that belong to the people. They are legal for all pbase members to post share and print. These photos are taken by great military photographers around the world. My gallery is a gallery of the facts and truths not bs protests and hate. I did comment on the picturs, I think they should suffer the sma fate as the rest of the political galleries have. Censorship is not cool! This is America and fair is fair in my opinion.

n		27-Aug-2004 15:46
I heard that galleries were removed from the Pbase popular list because they did not contain original work. Instead, they represented a collection of images from the web. This is a photography web site. All of the photos in this gallery came from my camera; I am the photographer. My goal in taking these photos was to capture one aspect of American culture during a tumultuous time. Please comment on the photos rather than posting long poltical articles. If you feel a need to make a longer statement, add a link the way that Don Northup did. n

Don Northup		27-Aug-2004 15:12
You scare me bub.... because 5 other political galleries were removed from the popular list on the 24th of August 2004,including mine when it was #1 at pbase. that's why

n		27-Aug-2004 14:25
In response to Don Northup: Why should my gallery be removed from the popular list? Because you disagree with the content? What kind of America are you trying to establish? You are a scary person, Mr. Northrup.

Don Northup		27-Aug-2004 14:08
I think it unfair that this gallery remain on the plist. Here is the real story. http://www.pbase.com/minoltaman/the_words_and_deeds_of_john_kerry

Ted Levin		27-Aug-2004 13:49
Thank you for putting on this gallery. They took off my pro Kerry-anti Bush gallery from the popular galleries. It's still in my galleries. Keep up the good work.

JD Anderson		27-Aug-2004 04:57
"Bush lied about the gravity of the threat of Iraq in the context of other world problems. Then he spent the nation’s resources on a war that was unnecessary." Apparently you don't pay attention to any unbiased reporting. Take off your liberal blinders and go research the facts, then come back and make some comments. ...I'd bet money on it that you are unwilling to do so. Bummer for you. Take care, JD

Guest		25-Aug-2004 23:05
Bush lied about the gravity of the threat of Iraq in the context of other world problems. Then he spent the nation’s resources on a war that was unnecessary. Bush lied about not supporting nation building and then undertook the largest nation building project since WW II. He had this plan EVEN BEFORE 9-11. Bush lies about Kerry not supporting the troops by voting against the $87 billion bill when in fact Bush threatened to veto the same bill when democrats offered to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy. BUSH SENT TROOPS TO IRAQ, on his schedule, WITHOUT PROPER BODY AMOUR and with insufficient forces. But the Iraq war is just one of many things that Bush has screwed up since taking office. Pick a topic; his administration has screwed it up. Go ahead and attack Kerry because Bush supporters don’t have anything positive to say. This web site doesn’t appear to be about democrats. It’s about Bush. You should keep the discussion to his record.

Guest		25-Aug-2004 21:24
Hey Guest - Shut it! We know who you are, Herr Northrop. You're just pablum pukers, to steal a phrase from Morton Downey, Jr. whom I'm sure is a nazi fascist pig like you. Clearest choice we've had in years, if not in the history of the Republic - Fascism (Bush) versus freedom (Kerry). Someone who can't even read the Constitution and screws it, and us, every chance he gets, against someone who reads, respects and is thoughtful about the greatest document we have. Burn the flag, screw the President, but yes, my loyaly is with the law of the land, the Constitution, something the anti-Christ Bush doesn't even know how to spell. So, shut it, and stick to photography. Asshole.

Guest		25-Aug-2004 17:24
If Bush lied, then what did these dems do? It's all in there words. But you will just delete this, because you can't answer it. "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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 b elieve 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 always 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 weap ons 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." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. "[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 is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued 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.

mizoleila		24-Aug-2004 19:31
Clever, cool and funny! Please try to keep the accent on visuals not verbals.

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment