ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

500 Days

[ Posted Friday, September 7th, 2007 – 10:00 UTC ]

If I've programmed my Bush clock correctly, the minute I post this is exactly 500 days from Inaugural Day 2008. It's kind of tricky to figure, since '08 is a leap year, there are time zones to consider, and that pesky daylight savings time thing, but I'm pretty sure that 1:00 PM today (East Coast time) is exactly 500 days until the end of President George W. Bush's term in office.

To avoid all these calculations, I strongly suggest you get a "Bush clock" of your own. It's even been reported that staffers in the White House have such clocks on their desks (to remind them of how much time they have remaining to get things done). It's a pretty safe bet, though, that their clocks are slightly different from the one I have:

Bush Countdown Clock

These clocks may be purchased online through the independent bookseller Bookshop Santa Cruz [full disclosure: I received absolutely nothing for that blatant product placement].

To mark this special occasion, I have written my own lyrics to the song "500 Miles." Massive apologies in advance to Hedy West (who wrote the original song) and to Peter, Paul, and Mary fans everywhere.

 

500 Days

Lord he's one, Lord he's two, Lord he's three, Lord he's four,

Lord he's 500 days from going home.

500 days, 500 days, 500 days, 500 days

Lord he's five hundred days from going home.

 

Not a plan for Iraq, not a thought in his brain

Lord he can't go a-home soon enough

Soon enough, soon enough, soon enough, soon enough,

Lord he can't go a-home soon enough.

 

As the Bush clock says: "Our national nightmare will soon be over."

Amen to that.

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

16 Comments on “500 Days”

  1. [1] 
    fstanley wrote:

    Okay I am laughing out loud or as they text LOL.
    Very funny
    ...Stan

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    >"Our national nightmare will soon be over."

    To be replaced by.... what???

    The only viable Dem candidate for the General Election will be unlikely to prevail in the primary..

    All the GOP candidates have so much baggage associated with them (with the exception of Thompson) that they are all but worthless...

    If Bloomberg doesn't get into the race as an Independent, then we're probably looking at a President Fred Thompson in 2009..

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    CDub wrote:

    Not soon enough, perhaps we can talk him into taking his next 400+ days of vacations starting ... oh I don't know, YESTERDAY?

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quote from Osama Bin Laden..

    "'You elected the Democratic Party... but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war'..."

    Iddn't amazing how the rhetoric of the Radical Left and the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden is nearly identical??

    I find that extremely fascinating...

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Michale,

    No... what is amazing (snippy time again)... is that right-wing idiots have conveniently forgotten something called facts (and yes, these aren't debatable, are totally verifiable, and set in stone):

    1) President Bush himself stated in March, 2002, at a press conference:

    found here

    Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

    And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

    2) President Bush then diverted our troop strength and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in March, 2003.

    3) President Bush then stated in the 2004 Presidential Debates:

    found here

    BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

    4) In late 2005, President Bush allows the CIA to disband the CIA task force whose mission it was to locate Bin Laden:

    found here

    WASHINGTON, July 3 (2006) — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

    The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

    The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

    The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

    So, let's recap:

    - President Bush is asleep at the wheel on and before 9/11.
    - President Bush states he'll get Bin Laden "Dead or Alive" after 9/11.
    - President Bush, six months after 9/11, is no longer concerned about Bin Laden.
    - President Bush, a year and a half after 9/11, diverts troops and resources to attack, invade, then occupy Iraq.
    - President Bush lies to the American public about his 2002 statement of not worrying about Bin Laden.
    - President Bush allows the CIA to disband the CIA Bin Laden task force in 2005.

    and now... right-wing idiots are blaming the DEMOCRATS for the failures of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress for 5 whole years when Bin Laden issues ANOTHER tape, 6 years after 9/11?

    I thought with Democratic politician's in Congress capitulating to President Bush on everything that the Republicans had a shot of taking back Congress in 2008. I was wrong. America woke up in 2006 and this video by Bin Laden only reinforces just how inept the GOP had been for 5 years under President Bush and a Republican Congress. As the right-wing idiots attack Democrats for their own failures, I see everyone in America who isn't a clueless idiot rallying at the polls to make them not only irrelevant in 2008, but an extinct species.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Geee, maybe you can thrown in that Bush was responsible for the Black Plague, Vietnam and also was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.. :^/

    You are so blinded by hatred of Bush and the GOP that you fail to acknowledge all the Democratic Party contributions..

    So, say it. You tell me that BUSH and the GOP are completely and 1000% responsible for everything bad in this country and the Democratic Party are nothing but the victims and are responsible for everything that is GOOD in this country.....

    Go ahead.. Say it...

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the GOP being extinct in 2008, are you high???

    What Dem Presidential candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected??

    Hillary?? Oh com' on.. The woman has more negative baggage than a Mafia Don in front of St Peter... Talk about a candidate that will GUARANTEE a GOP victory across the board!! Hillary is the GOP's wettest of wet dreams...

    Obama?? While I will concede he has some fresh ideas, he is a complete and utter rookie.. *I* have more foreign policy experience than he does... And, to be perfectly frank, this country is not yet mature enough to handle a black president.. That's not a racist statement, just my assessment of the complete and utter idiocy (in this regard) of Americans specifically and humans in general..

    Really, the only person who MIGHT stand a chance against the GOP is Edwards.. He is the consummate politician.. Two-faced, back-stabbing, manipulative and only out for power and glory... But he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being the Dem Party candidate..

    So, I would love to hear how you reconcile the above with your statement that the GOP is going to be an "extinct species" in 2008.

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was a Richard Pryor Movie called "Some Kind Of Hero" that Mad Magazine spoofed in one issue..

    I don't recall much, but this one segment of the spoof where Pryor, in his military uniform, is sitting on a plane being escorted somewhere by some high level general..

    Anyways, I remember specifically where the General is rambling on and on about the ills of this country. Richard Pryor mumbles, "Oh... I'm sorry" and the General replies..

    "Oh, it's not your fault. Your only responsible for pain, suffering and the Black Plageu"

    Or words to that effect..

    You Bush Bashers remind me of that... If you people had your way, you would rewrite history to insure that Bush is made responsible for everything bad thing in this country and get NONE of the credit for any of the good..

    Tell me something.. Since you are so eager to blame Bush for everything you have listed above, are you equally eager to give him the credit for all the good??

    Somehow, I honestly doubt it..

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Michale,

    Here is why I get snippy with you:

    Your first reply - "You are so blinded by hatred of Bush and the GOP that you fail to acknowledge all the Democratic Party contributions.."

    Yet, you never mention ONE so-called contribution. Not one. You only make the statement with ZERO facts. Not ONE fact to back it. Why? Because you have no facts to back it. Republicans had the White House and both Houses of Congress. What "contributions" could the Democrats have made???? NONE. It was ALL GOP and Bush for 5 years.

    Your second reply - "As far as the GOP being extinct in 2008, are you high??? What Dem Presidential candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected??"

    ALL OF THEM. How many GOP Congressmen have announced they won't seek another term in Congress vs how many Democrats? Gee, that stench of hypocrisy and corruption finally hit the sunshine and the GOP is hemorraging people. How many GOP Presidential candidates are considered "electable" by their own base on abortion, family values, religion, gay issues? "Cross-dresser" Giuliani who has PROVEN himself to lie about his role on 9/11 and had a mistress while he was married? "Flip-Flop" McCain who attacked the Evangelicals last time only to lick their boots on this campaign run? "Mr. Let's Not Parse Religion" Romney who wants to double Guantanamo?

    ANY candidate who wins in '08 will do so on the back of the Independent vote. At the moment, Independents are going to the Democrats by AT LEAST a margin of 2-1. As MORE GOP Congressmen are mired in scandal (Steven's, Craig, Vitter, Allen, etc, etc, etc) the Democrats will increase their margin in Congress in '08. The Republican "base" is a little over 30% (we know, because that is Bush's approval rating) which is no where near 51%. It is Independents who carry the day at election time - which makes EVERY Democratic Presidential candidate more likely to be elected than a GOP candidate.

    Your third reply - "Tell me something.. Since you are so eager to blame Bush for everything you have listed above, are you equally eager to give him the credit for all the good??"

    Yes! More GOP talking points without one hint of specifics or factual proof! "He's done so much good!" Name them. Name everything he has done that has been good and post the facts to back it. Otherwise, all you post is your subjective opinion.

    And yes, we DO blame Bush for EVERYTHING I list... know why... BECAUSE HE IS THE FRIGGIN' PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. But you apologist's can't wrap your skulls around THAT concept while it is "but, but, CLINTON's BLOWJOB!!" Didn't have a problem laying everything at CLINTON's feet, did you? But Bush???? Oh no... GOD talks to Bush!!!

    puhhh-leasseee..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you are saying that the Democratic Party holds ZERO culpability and responsibility for the issues facing us??

    That Clinton did his UTMOST to capture or kill Bin Laden??

    So, what you are saying is that EVERYTHING BAD is GOP and EVERYTHING GOOD is DEMOCRAT???

    Like you said.... "puhhh-leasseee.."

    As far as the "good" that the Bush Administration has done...

    No terrorist attacks on US proper in 6 years....

    That's a keeper stat, son....

    If you want to give Bush all the blame, you HAVE to give him the credit as well..

    Anything less makes you a hypocrite...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Michale,

    And, once again, you respond with ONE thing after all of your bluster; that Al-Qaeda hasn't struck on American soil since 2001...

    Here is a "keeper stat" for you...

    2001 to 2007 is 6 years. The first WTC attack was 1993 and second attack was 2001... that is 8 years. Do that math for a "keeper stat"... 6 is less than 8... which means you can give Bush ZERO credit for it.

    And... once again... it all goes back to Clinton huh???? When you have nothing, can come up with nothing, you just run to the old, "but but Clinton!!!"... Here is a "keeper" for you... Clinton left office in 2000 when Bush took over.

    Here's is another keeper for you... the WTC tower was attacked in 1993, 8 WEEKS after Clinton took office. Clinton kept American soil safe from 1993 until 2000 when he left... almost his entire 8 year administration.

    Here's another keeper for you... the WTC tower was again hit... this time under President Bush... who had been in office 8 MONTHS and had been WARNED by his own administration's officials in the Aug. 6th memo that Bin Laden was going to attack.

    Do I fault Clinton for not "getting" Bin Laden? No. Do you know why? Because the REPUBLICAN Congress was blocking and attacking Clinton every step of the way since 1994 except for one thing... the missile strikes against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Sudan.

    Somalia? Republicans wanted to "cut and run". Kosovo? Republicans wanted to "cut and run". Clinton sent out cruise missiles to kill Bin Laden and missed...

    THE United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two American embassies.

    Gen Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said further military operations were being considered. The threat posed by terrorists meant no details would be given in case they endangered US troops.

    "Our target was terror. Our mission was clear," President Clinton said last night in a television address to the nation after America hit training bases in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan with sea-launched missiles. The offensive had been mounted to "counter an immediate threat". He said military intelligence indicated that a "gathering of key terrorist leaders" was planned yesterday at the site in Afghanistan.

    Mr Clinton and defense officials said the facilities were linked to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire whom US officials say is a major sponsor of terrorism. Bin Laden was unharmed, according to a spokesman for Afghanistan's Taliban rulers.

    Democrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it "the right thing to do". Mr Clinton telephoned Tony Blair and several congressional leaders before the strikes, among them Mr Gingrich and the Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.

    ... oh wait... it was all Clinton fault even though Republicans RALLIED behind Clinton... ummm... doesn't that just toss your talking point that it was all Clinton's fault into the toilet??? Doesn't mean you can't try it though, right?

    Then-Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich (R-GA): "I think the President did exactly the right thing ... By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists. ... Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing ... It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)

    Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Senate Majority Leader: "[The attacks are] appropriate and just." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Clinton Critics," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)

    ... "hypocrite" you say? I'm reminded of a quote... how does it go????

    "I donna think that word means what you think it means"...

  12. [12] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    and... just to SHOW you just how idiotic some conservatives are... go to

    http://www.republicanandproud.com/clintonlegacy.htm

    Here are some gems:

    "1993-18 Soldiers killed in Somalia and 84 wounded in attack planned by bin Laden. Clinton pulls troops out of Somalia. bin Laden claims victory and gains status with his followers as one who is able to make the "Great Satan" run. Somalia falls into a chaos that remains to this day."

    Oh wait... pulling out of Somalia was all Clinton's fault???? Talk about revisionist history!!!

    Senator John McCain in 1993 - There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks. Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible...

    Senator Strom Thurmond in 1993 - It is past time for the Congress to come to grips with this sorry spectacle and force the administration to find a way out of the quagmire--before Somalia becomes the pattern for future United States missions with the United Nations.

    Senator Phil Gramm in 1993 - The President's decision to extend our presence for 6 more months is totally unacceptable to me and totally unacceptable, I believe, to the Congress. If the people of Texas--who are calling my phones every moment, who are sending me letters and telegrams by the hour--are representative of the will of the American people, the American people do not believe that we should allow Americans to be targets in Somalia for 6 more months. I cannot see anything that we would achieve in 6 more months in Somalia.

    Senator Dirk Kempthorne in 1993 - Mr. President, it is time for our troops to come home. I would give this directive to the military leadership and that is that they are to use whatever means they determine necessary to secure the release of American POW's in Somalia, because to leave them behind would be to issue adeath sentence to those Americans, and that is absolutely unacceptable. But, Mr. President, the longer we leave United States troops in Somalia under U.N. command, the longer we leave United States troops in unjustified danger. I owe my allegiance to the United States, not to the United Nations. It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.

    Senator Slade Gorton in 1993 - We are in a disaster, Mr. President. If we had retreated earlier, we would have left fewer dead Americans behind. It is time to retreat now and leave no more dead Americans behind and to learn the lesson that American power should be used only where we have a clear stake in a conflict, a clear goal to be achieved, the clear means to reach that goal, and the potential of clear support on the part of the American people. As none of those exist in Somalia today, it is time to leave. And for this body, it is time to debate this issue and not the nomination of an Assistant Attorney General.

    Senator Jesse Helms in 1993 - Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now. We can take care of that criminal warlord over there. We have the means to do it and the capacity to do it. But it ought to be done by the United Nations. I do not want to play in any more U.N. games. I do not want any more of our people under the thumb of any U.N. commander--none. As a matter of fact, while we are at it, it is high time we reviewed the War Powers Act, which, in the judgment of this Senator, should never have been passed in the first place. The sole constitutional authority to declare war rests, according to our Founding Fathers, right here in the Congress of the United States, and not on Pennsylvania Avenue. I voted against the War Powers Act. If it were to come up again today, I would vote against it. I have never regretted my opposition to it.

    And what did Clinton say?

    "We face a choice," the president said. "Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive?"

    And the REPUBLICANS called for Clinton to exit Somalia after how many dead Americans? 3,733??? Nope... less then 45 dead American soldiers. Was it after almost 5 YEARS of war in Somalia? Nope... not even 10 months.

    Here is another gem from this crackpot:

    "1994- Algerian terrorists attempt to hijack French Airliner to fly into the Eiffel Tower. Plane is stormed by French police."

    Ummm... tell me how ALGERIAN terrorists attempting to hijack a FRENCH airliner IN FRANCE and the plane being stormed by FRENCH police is CLINTON's fault????

    How about this gem from this idiot?

    "1996-CIA and FBI warn Clinton they have uncovered plot of al Qaeda "Martyrdom Battalion" terrorists to hijack planes and use them as missiles. This apparently is never passed on to the Congress."

    Wait... didn't Al-Qaeda do EXACTLY that during BUSH's administration???? Why... yes... yes they did... and Bush was WARNED as well! It didn't occur under Clinton's administration... did it?

    But, the crackpot harps on it!

    "1996-Philippine authorities warn the FBI they have received credible information that al Qaeda is planning on hijacking planes and flying them into Federal Buildings. Again, this information apparently stops with Bill Clinton and is never passed on to the proper Congressional Intelligence Committees."

    Actually, it was in 1995, not 1996, that the Manila government busted the Al-Qaeda cell. And... once again... under whose administration did Al-Qaeda get to use their plan????? Clinton's???? or BUSH's!

    Oh... this gem is priceless!

    "1998- UNOCAL gave up all hope of a pipeline across Afghanistan and pulled out. Not because of Afghanistan harboring a terrorist, but from pressure from the Women's Rights groups over the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan."

    Yeah... Bush attacks Afghanistan, removes the Taliban, Karzai all but names himself President of Afghanistan, and in Dec 2002, guess who got signed a pipeline deal? KARZAI! As Gomer Pyle would say... Wellllll goooooll-lllyyy.

    Gotta love this gem I've already debunked:

    "1998-Missile strike against bin Laden's Khost, Afghanistan training camp and a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory to take Monica off the front pages is a total failure. Clinton lobs over $70 million dollars worth of Cruise Missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan hitting nothing but tents, camels and the only pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Done without consulting his Joint Chiefs. He informs them of his plans one half hour prior to the attack. Their pleas for him to stop the attack due to inadequate intelligence, are ignored. They later distance themselves from the attack by admitting they were not consulted. The Military Commander in that area said it "would have been a million to one shot."

    Gee... $70 million in cruise missiles vs $400 BILLION in Iraq war. And conservative nuts are SCREAMING that Clinton wasted money! Gee... a cruise missile attack that fails with ZERO American dead, vs, an INVASION that fails and now, 3,733 American dead! O...M...G! And CLINTON's horrendous?????

  13. [13] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Oh... and let's make this a trifecta...

    The 1993 WTC bombing? Well, guess what...

    "In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing."

    By one year after the bombing, the Clinton administration had arrested, tried, and CONVICTED four of the bombers.

    "Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime on December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS on May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and lived as a free man in Saudi Arabia."

    A year and a half after the bombing, another suspect was arrested and deported (lacking evidence to take to trial, I assume). But, here is the kicker:

    "In October 1996, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. "

    By 3 and a half years after bombing, the MASTERMIND had been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced.

    Now, keep in mind, under Clinton we didn't invade any countries. We didn't get thousands of American soldiers killed. We didn't displace millions. We didn't set up new court systems. We didn't open new prisons. We didn't put out new "enhanced interrogation" techniques that amount to torture. We used good old fashioned intelligence, law enforcement, and our current court system.

    Let's compare that to Bush...

    Sept 11, 2001... Sept 2007... 6 years... and the mastermind, Bin Laden, is still at large and putting out video's after 2 countries being invaded, thousands of dead American soldiers, millions displaced. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Torture. Military Commissions Act.

    Yeah... Bush is SO much better than Clinton!

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never made the claim that Bush is "so much better than Clinton." I simply claimed that Clinton is as much to blame for 9/11 as is Bush..

    >the Clinton administration had arrested,
    >tried, and CONVICTED four of the bombers.

    Yea, and filed some lawsuits too.. Big whoop...

    It still didn't stop 9/11...

    Had Clinton done in 1993 what Bush did in 2002, there would never have BEEN a 9/11...

    I am not saying that the GOP is perfect.. I am simply denying YOUR contention that your Democratic Party is perfect...

    Something you simply WILL NOT concede...

    According to you, "it's ALL Bush's fault!!".. And that is simply not true and you damn well know it..

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Big whoop???? Clinton's administration caught the people responsible for the attack in 1993... they caught them, tried them, convicted them, and put them in prison... and you say "BIG WHOOP... it still didn't stop 9/11"

    Hey... Einstein... CLINTON WASN'T PRESIDENT DURING 9/11... IT WASN'T CLINTON'S JOB TO STOP 9/11 DURING BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.

    "Had Clinton done in 1993 what Bush did in 2002, there would never have BEEN a 9/11…"

    Desperate aren't you! I guess by your reasoning, it is all Reagan's fault then, since the first major terrorist attack was in 1983 in Beirut and Reagan didn't invade the Middle East, he didn't kill all of those nasty terrorists... so... by YOUR OWN REASONING... it is truly REAGAN's fault.

    "According to you, "it's ALL Bush's fault!!".. And that is simply not true and you damn well know it.."

    What I "damn well know" is that it was under Bush's watch that the FBI, the CIA, the FAA, the military alert aircraft, the Pentagon's air defenses, and airport security organizations all FAILED... ALL of them... SIMULTANEOUSLY... not ONE of the organizations had their shit together after Bush had been office for 8 months.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    ANd Bush is responsible for the Black Plague, Vietnam and the lack of cure for the common cold..

    Yes we know.. :^/

    Bush made all those terrible bonehead stoopid mistakes and yet... and yet... YOUR DEMOCRATS CAN'T SEEM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT...

    So, either your Democrats are WORSE AND MORE STOOPID than Bush..

    Or... maybe... JUST MAYBE... You are in the wrong...

    Think about it... Get past your hysterical hatred and try to think rationally about things...

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.