KM,
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that that is what he had to do. Al Gore I'm willing to bet (just for my own amusement) would have been circling the country in airforce one for a week. And then he may have gone back to the White House to hide under the bed.

Now obviously I'm being facecious but we can't believe that every President would have done the same thing. FDR was not at Pearl Harbor on December 8th. Jimmy Carter didn't go to Libya and Bill Clinton didn't order bin Laden dead when he had several chances! My point? We're lucky to have a Man Of Action in the White House.

JL,

Yes, President Bush is a man of action but not of thought. He smacked the Taliban down, missed Osama bin Ladin, smacked the Iraqi military down, missed Saddam Hussein, and now we occupy two more countries.

Indefinately, while the Taliban regroups and terrorism rises.

The recovery may be just another round of creative accounting. The most recent Fortune magazine wonders about "What Big Profits You Have!" Seems that profits are up but not revenue. I don't see an online link to this, but your local library probably has an issue.

Hmmm, how do you make more money but not bring more money in? I suppose massive layoffs would help. Ding! Or running equipment into the ground. Ding! Or outsourcing to cheap foreign nationals. Ding!

Three economic dings, yer out.

So, action goes only so far for reelection. I suppose 9/11 can be exploited, but that will have to be done very carefully. The potential of offending the entire country is high. Meanwhile, the actions having been done, we deal with the aftermath of those actions. Many wonder if more forthought would have been good before going to war in Iraq. Many wonder also when the Afghanistan occupation will end, and possibly when the oil pipeline construction will begin.

Still others wonder when jobs will trickle out of economic recovery.

No, I don't see a Bush reelection as being a done deal. Not by a long shot. A year is a very short time for the issues at hand to turn around.

I think that President Bush has done a great job in reaction to 11 Sept 2001 and I think that his proactive response to Iraq was an even better decision. Granted we don't have the two most wanted men in the world but life's not perfect and we haven't been attacked again, which apparently is not for a lack of trying on the part of the al-Qaeda. He has done a superlative job and I'm confident that he'll do another great job for the next four years. He has not been shown to be the horrible human rights menace the left made him out to be, he proved profusely that the left underestimated him and he has done great things for the safety of America....on top of all that the economy is on the rebound and more tax cuts will only continue to help it. Let's support President Bush rather than bashing him slanderously.

And this is why the Dems won't win. The Democratic party is so pathetically wayward right now, that Dems just try to vote for anyone that isn't GW, instead of uniting around a single candidate.

CP

Eh? Wouldn't that be the opposite? Now democrats are less inclined to vote for their first choice and vote for who they think will win. Thus, they ALL will rally behind the person who is ahead in the polls leaving behind their first choice. They aren't seperating, they're uniting.

JL,



What slander? What bashing? Did I write something false in my post? Did I go over the top and call him some bad name?

President Bush did well by encouraging the international community to cooperate with anti-terrorist efforts, and this has been more effective than anything else in avoiding attacks. Of course, the international community has a direct stake in this as well. The next most effective effort has been homeland security, but as we both know, this is sadly underfunded.

Maybe rounding up ME types did avoid other attacks. Maybe not. Who knows? This is all shrouded in secrecy. I suppose if I had total trust in this administration, I could give the benefit of the doubt.

But I don't, and they did lie to us about the African-Iraq connection. I just wonder how many other lies have been told and truths stretched to promote agenda.

As for Iraq, the clear and present danger that Bush pushed before the war has not yet to be proven. That WMDs have not been located, and assuming they existed in the first place, this is cause for concern. Who has them now? Terrorists?

conservpat: The Democratic party is so pathetically wayward right now, that Dems just try to vote for anyone that isn't GW, instead of uniting around a single candidate.

Huh?

Pardon me Conservpat, but if you haven't noticed yet there hasn't been any primaries held in Iowa, New Hampshire or anywhere else to narrow the field. This is how the political process works. Of course Democrats favor Anybody But Bush.
He's a Republican. Democrats tend to favor Democratic candidates!

Didn't Bush have to get past John McCain and other Republicans for the right to replace Bill Clinton? I'm surprised I have to explain this.

JohnLocke: Let's support President Bush rather than bashing him slanderously.

That's your job JL as a Dubya supporter. Bush had the support of the American people following 9/11 when he went after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But he squandered it to go off on a wild oil hunt in Iraq and to get "the guy who tried to kill my dad."

Bush II has provided ample reasons to make history repeat itself and turn him out after one term just like his daddy.

I look forward to the opportunity to do so in November 2004.

Nightimer,
The actual quote is..."The man who tried to kill my Daddy". To me that's a perfectly acceptable reason to kill somebody. Have you no Culture? I have met very few people that wouldn't kill someone who tried to kill their father. I'm Italian and to be perfectly honest, it would shame me and my family if I didn't go after a man that tried to kill my Daddy.

As for your oil comment....that's completely baseless and you nor anyone else on these threads has any proof of it. As I have always maintained, this war in Iraq is about a strategic location to carry out the war on terror. I have never said anything less and I believe that since Bush's speech last Sunday, it is quite clear that I have been proven right about that!

I predict that Bush will get "reappointed" to the Presidency, with Dean coming in second. How can you re-elect some one who wasn't legally elected the first time around? The Bush regime will foil democracy once again...

Just quit that already...
We have another thread (somewhere... ) to deal with that issue, if you like...

Ah....no. That's how I feel. Sorry. I think Bush will "win" the election "hook or by crook" to quote Peter Pan. Hey, there was a reason so many felt disenfranchised in 2000, it wasn't a small minority of people upset, but slightly over 50% of the voters. So don't dismiss my sentiments as "old or unwarranted" because there are clearly many who feel as I do. But Dean will give him a run for his money and who knows I may be wrong and Bush will hopefully be a one term President like his father.

Would it shame you if your family forced 146,000 young men and women to go try and kill the man that tried to kill your daddy, but refused to fight themselves? Would it shame you if your family took month-long vacations while those poor saps you sent to kill the man who tried to kill your daddy bled and died? Would it shame you if your family scorned, insulted and reviled old friends who tried to dissuade them from their foolish and selfish path, then demand that they too share in the punishment for their crime? Would it shame you if your family fabricated evidence to make it look as if the man who tried to kill your daddy was a danger to them? Would it shame you if your family killed 6125-7843 innocent men, women and children on their mindless quest for vengance?


These are most certainly the actions of a responsible family. Not in the traditional sense of the domestic unit, but of another type of "family": the Mafia. Unprovoked aggression, disregard for laws both domestic and international, an utterly amoral desire for one's own enrichment regardless of the expense to others, these are the trademarks of the mob. That's what this administration is: a mob. And when your government becomes a mob, you need another kind of mob to fix it: the people.


George Bush could win, but I don't think he will. Things just keep getting worse and worse in Iraq, and the economy is down the toilet. When people see soliders dying and people losing jobs, the current government gets the boot.

A little too much Al Sharpton, perhaps?

Bush's approval numbers are still quite strong, despite constant negative reporting on the situation in Iraq. 67% of registered Democrats cannot identify a single primary candidate. That says alot.

This is drifting away from the subject of whether or not Bush can be elected to a second term. However, I've got to say JL that while a personal vendetta may be a understandable reason to you for Dubya going after Saddam's hide, it is an awful reason to send a nation into war.

As much as I detest Shrub, I'd like to believe he isn't as horrifically stupid as to put thousands of American soldiers into harm's way and kill untold numbers of Iraquis in an attempt to settle the score with Saddam. If Shrub wanted to spill Saddam's blood so badly, why not challenge him to a steel cage match with only one survivor walking away?

Sure could have saved billions of dollars and a lot of dead soldiers and civilians.

Oh, and yes I have a sense of culture. I also have a sense of history and how the separation of powers works. IF George Bush Jr. were craven enough to debase his position as Commander-In-Chief to start a war based not on evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of an avowed enemy of the United States but soley upon his lust for revenge he should be impeached and throw out of office in disgrace.

By the way, while I appreciate your providing me with the exact quote by Dubya, I should point out it's "Nighttimer" with two "t's."

JL you say it is not about oil well who is getting the oil contract? Yep, you guessed it one of Bush jr.'s friends from the oil industry Halliburton. If Bush was so worried about some country having wmd why did he not do something about North Korea, North Korea even admits they have and are making nuclear weapons.

Now to international backing yes Bush did have international backing when it was to stop terrorizism but once he went to Iraq against what the congress authorized him to do which was with UN backing we had weapon inspectors in Iraq and they did not find anything either, now he has ruined relations with certain countries that we have had support from for over 50 years. Yes, those countries had certain agendas on why not going to war with Iraq, but they could have been worked thru. Now what is going to happen when we need support from our allies in either militarily or financially for Iraq or future Bush wars. We are going to have to bend over backwards trying to get our alliances to help us out.

By the way, when Bush and his adminstration uses information that was gathered when Bill Clinton was in the White House and actually destroyed the wmd. Then altering the facts to make it sound like the information is recent information on Iraq's capabilites of wmd that is called lying to our faces.

Yes Bush did have the backing of the American people after 9/11, but he blown his chances of being reelected because of his domestic issues and foreign issues are lacking. Domestically we are in the worst deficit this country has ever seen, his tax cuts are not helping at all. You want evidence well the unemployment numbers have not gone down just the opposite they have gone up. Yes the stock market is going up a little bit because the richer people getting the dividend checks from Bush's tax cut are putting back into market. How is that helping jobs?

For is foreign issues, well there has been recent talk of doing something militarily in Iran. Which once again we probably wont have the support of our allies. And the Bush adminstration talked with North Korea but nothing came of it.

If you want to back someone in the Bush adminstration you should back everyone but Bush he is only the poster boy anyways, Cheney and Rumesfeld are the men behind the curtain pulling the strings. Speaking of 9/11 why when World Trade buildings were being struck Bush continued to read a book to school children? Hmm, because Cheney and Rumesfeld were taking care of it.

With Bush's leave no child behind campaign slogan he in fact left alot of children behind. Schools across this country had to get rid of certain school programs, lay-off teachers and raise property taxes to try to salvage some of the programs and teachers. One of Bush Jr.'s campaign promises were we are not going to be the police of the world and send military troops all over the place, as well as going to remove some of our troops from some of the locations that they are stationed at already. Well we are policing the world look what happened in Africa Bush sent in troops to POLICE THE Nigeria.

As you can see I will definitely not be voting for Bush II, right now I am leaning towards Dean. For the person that said 67% of registered democrats cant name one primary candidate well here is all of them Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Carol Mosley Braun, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich . I new the names but only looked up on how to spell a few of them .

Lets send Bush packing just like we did to his father.

Oh and by the way have you seen Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden neither has Bush.

When I hear the term tax cuts i usually think about the rich will benefit while the rest of society suffers. Then when I look to democrats I realize they like to dig pockets in some form of socialism be it pro-education or healthcare, so I try to look for one that is smart on that democratic token.

Bush’s plan to cut taxes and do government spending at the same time seemed rather silly to me. When the u.n condemned the u.s for some of its prison systems we did not care, or the mess with china and our spy plane. Overall the fiscal policies bush seems to represent are the same history honored pacts the republicans have with current power in society, it must relate to the conservative word. To go into the foreign policy that bush and his pnac cronies represent is nothing but bad road, its not something i would like to see America travel either. I give the current administration and f in just about every department, and the faith based charities charade is something that i wont get over any time soon. His environmental policies have to be some of the worst i have witnessed in a very long time, he would have barren earth if you could turn a dollar out of it. Overall the whole system they have designed seems self-serving and self-defeating, and just a tad corrupt.

I think i will most likely throw my vote away on nader, unless a democrat with a mind is a real threat to bush, but i imagine i will just crack and use my vote in any form to get bush out of office, from local elections to federal ones. I wish McCain had more power in the gop, he is not much better, but better he is.

If you want to do something good for america, vote bush and his admin out of office this election.

I expect Bush will win, barring a deterioration in the Iraq situation or the economy, and while I won't exactly jump for joy when it happens, I do prefer him to any announced Democrat.

IMHO, Dean is likely to be nominated and likely to lose the general election in a McGovern vs. Nixon II kind of way. Wesley Clark would be the one Karl Rove most fears in the general election, because Clark's military credentials largely neutralize Bush's advantage on the national security issue.

Me, I'll probably vote for whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, unless it appears by doing so I'd be contributing to the election of any Democrat, in when case I'd vote for Bush, though not enthusiastically.

Let's see here now, if third party voters decide to back one of the Big Two candidates, how might that wash out?

Libertarians will tend to go toward Bush, Greens toward the Demo nominee.

Also toward the Demos: Progressives. Toward Bush, Independents (the party).

So if all who voted Demo in 2000 keep on doing so (no reason why this would not happen), and the Greens/Progressives come in, no second term for Bush.

Granted that premise - that all those who voted Dem in 2000 will continue to do so - I'd also agree with your conclusion, AM. However, I don't think it'll necessarily shake out that way. 9/11 changed everything, and national security has become a critically important issue for some time to come. Nobody who is perceived as soft on it is going to be elected, and any of the current Dems other than Clark and maybe Lieberman and Kerry is going to look that way. Also, nobody is claiming Bush is "stupid" anymore. Many of the same people would claim he's evil instead, but regardless of PoV, there is no longer much doubt among the electorate of his ability to do the job,

Well i hope bush does not remain in office, i wont vote for him period, i don’t find bush by himself able to any damage, and for the most part i see him as a person the neocons used as a platform to get where they needed to be, being he carried the bush name and represented various groups in America such as Christians i would think, he likes to be Christian on national television

More or less, Iraq has become this generations Vietnam, many of the leaders of our troops over there state that the attacks are becoming more organized. National security is a big issue, but how its going about is cause for concern on the rights people are losing, this has been called in to question before and i am sure is not a dead issue at both sides of the spectrum it affords. With such things as schools in Iraq not being available on time for media plugs and such, its rather a gray area to say how majority America approach’s it, being i never trust polls, its rather difficult for me to say. For so much on Iraq, nothing bush or the admin has stated has come true if not turned out to be flat lies. I am sure its something that will come to light as the elections run on.

I also feel that these issues along are major but may not be the only things that are looked upon for elections. More to the point I hope the American mindset has not become so narrow as to forget everything else. I don’t like any of the democrats really, and i have no idea who are the republican runners. More or less as an individual i will just use my vote to combat pnac and neocons, that’s all i can really do.

Izdaari,

The question then becomes how will the Bush campaign attract Demos and Greens?

In 2000 we had a different America, that's for sure. And 9/11 did change this America, no doubt. But how has America changed?

I think that is a critical question for the Bush campaign to figure out. I'm doubtful that security will be the right message to push. In the 2002 election season, yes, and that has been demonstrated as being right on.

But just one year later, I doubt it. Seriously.

Rumsfeld addressed the people of Colorado Springs yesterday. Well, some of them. NATO is having a tete-a-tete down there, and Rumsfeld assured everyone that all is well in Iraq.

Um, did I just get a cognitive disconnect vibe?

So all is well with the campaign, too?

Maybe not.

Early prediction: Kerry/Dean on the Demo ticket. Just a guts feeling. Mutt & Jeff derisions from the right. Arrogance has its fall.

Putting away the Tarot cards for now

I think Clark will win.

President Bush will win. He won't make the same mistake his Dad did in 1992. Please Hillary jump in then we don't have to see ya in 2008. What's a pnac and neocons?

We were trying to figure out the neo-con question in this thread: Definition of conservative vs neo-conservative, it also referenced PNAC (their website: newamericancentury.org). Hope that helps.

I honestly hope that Dean wins the Dem nom. In that event Dean, in a Dean vs Bush election wouldn't have a chance.

Whoever wins the 2004 election will have been the candidate who pulled the most political fence-sitters.

I don't see Clark making it in the Dem primary. close but no cigar. Unless Dean screws up wildly, he will be the Primary winner.

The economy looks like it will be swinging around by election time, and Iraq will most likely be relegated to some back-page story by then, too. So, given those things, it would be difficult to see where Bush would lose.

Those sound like betting words. Care to shake on it?

I am more confident every day that Bush has no chance of being re-elected next year. Have you noticed his temper lately? I love it when he get's like this and starts being rude to the press...rude to his staff...rude to the Republican's who dare to question him when he tells them to do something. It's like watching a temper tantrum. Sometimes people don't like being bossed around. Maybe that's what happened here:

He's doing his best to make friends and influence people with the only tools he has so I probably shouldn't laugh.

But I will anyway.

Hopefully he'll never realize that if he makes enough enemies (or just the wrong enemy) he could find himself in a lot of trouble even before the election. Keep on digging George.

I definitely agree. As long as things were going great(example,the first years of his term) he was happy and cocky. Now since things are going downhill he is unhappy and wants to know why people don't believe him anymore.

Danya, I share your observations and conclusions. I'm not laughing because this is costing a good deal more than it ever should have, and those who pay are paying dearly.

I'm even willing to make a deal with the and promise my vote if only these people in charge would stop worrying about leaks and get to work to fix the Iraq situation, bring our troops back, and return to protecting the United States -- or should I say *start* protecting?

Saw a 60 Minutes segment on how vulnerable the chemical plants in the US are to attack. That would be a good place to start.

Guess if I could look at all this from a distance of space and time, it would be hillarious.

It's not. ##### Think I'd better do something else now.

Please do not attempt to bypass the profanity filter - Jaime

To revive this thread I offer a succinct analysis of the what the Dems have to offer in '04. Or maybe that should be what they lack?






link

[QUOTE]If by next November Saddam is in custody and Iraq is stable and sovereign, there will be no serious antiwar resentment for Dr. Dean to tap into. [/QUOTE]

So true. Now let's see the Bush administration pull this one out.

It is interesting to see the mainstream conservative press talking about antiwar resentment. Guess that means the Iraq war isn't over? Or is it the war on terrorism? It's unclear just how conservative thinking goes along these lines.

Will it be as unclear when the Bush campaign starts claiming the war or occupation or whatever is over?

[/QUOTE]Sure, they'll chant the mantra of a "jobless recovery" for awhile, but only until hiring picks up again.[/QUOTE]

Yep. And hiring will pick up when? I watch the high tech job market very closely. It has not picked up. Noticed a bubble of hiring over about a 4-week period in October only to be followed by a return to the anemic trickle. Meanwhile, the economic press keeps warning that the laws the Bush administration pushed for to fix US business practices have not worked. The same bull puckey that put the economy down is still going on.

There's even some speculation that another recession is coming. It'd be terrible for Bush if that happens anywhere close to next November. At least we will know just how he'd handle another recession.

The op ed piece is wrong about the tactics described as being a Democrat issue. It's an issue for the minority party, no matter what its stripe. Witness CA and Arnold. You can also go back to Reagan's first campaign and GWB's last campaign to see how this works.

What did GWB say about the evils of nation building? Oh yeah, we shouldn't be so arrogant.

Anyway, if Bush & Co. get us out of Iraq by November, we have only the Democrats to thank. It is their threat to Republican power that is the motivation to step up the withdrawal process.

As far as job creation, it looks like tax breaks won't work this time around. There are other problems to deal with, and I don't see that Republican ideology has a clue as to how to handle them. It's a one solution fits all situations type of thinking.

Well, will the Demos have better ideas? Time will tell, and I bet HR Clinton will have a lot to say about this and strings to pull, but not as a candidate. WJ Clinton will have influence, too. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out for the Demo platform.

But if we are out of Iraq by June, 2004, that'll be good enough for me.

Boy oh boy, Dean's brother's remains were found today over in Vietnam. Good booster for the polls. Whaddya guys make of this in terms of helping his campaign?

This is only second in terms of being fishy when compared to the Dr.Dean's triumval helping of an epileptic man yesterday.

JL:

Are you the same person that commented on the fact that CBS was telling false things about Reagan when he was painfully ill(or something to that effect)and that people had no right to do this?

If this is Howard Deans brothers remains, don't you think you may be guilty of what you accuse others of?

And to stay on the subject,if the people educate themselves Bush will be out of office. Of course there is the case of electronic voting which is a topic on another debate at AD.

I don't think much about finding the remains of a possible spy who was executed 30 years ago in Laos. Or was he an investigative journalist? How'd he ever get to Laos in the first place? The story is intriguing but finding the remains isn't.

I don't see Dean as much of a threat to a 2nd GWB term just yet. Perhaps the GWB folks are nervous, as evidenced by bringing this story up on this particular thread and attempting to discredit any bump in support for Dean.

What I think is remarkable about the Dean run is the populist support he has financially. This is an historic moment in American politics! The Internet has really changed the rules of the game.

I am so proud to have been part of making this happen through my work as a systems admin/programmer.

Fat cats beware! Your handful of billions is nothing compared to a mobilized consumer population. Think of a cow stuck in the Amazon River surrounded by hungry pirranah. Big is nothing against small and numerous.

We may be seeing a peaceful revolution in the works. Don't buy that digital camera, give the money to your favorite politician.

Edited: Just for a hoot and since I recently got a fat check for some freelance work, I threw $25 at Dean. Hey, now I'm on the mailing list and a part of something! It felt rather good. One small nibble for fishie, one giant leap for fishie kind. <:>>><

Edited again: AD got 25 smackers too. Share the wealth, eh? This could become a regular thing if the gigs keep on coming. Anybody up there listening?

Popeye,

When I trash Dean on national television by making up things about him that never happened, then we'll talk.


Author/Musician,

How much of an impact do you think that this whole internet fad is going to have on his campaign? Honestly, he already renigged on not taking private funds as he promised he wouldn't do. He must think he's going to need a lot more than what the public and the internet combined can get him .

Plus let's not forget that the Bush Camp isn't one or two millionaires, it's whole heck of a lot of millionaires. He's already raised an enormous amount of cash flow and we're still like seven months out from the nitty gritty.

Don't kid yourself. Those of us on AD are a pretty well informed and educated lot. The reason so many of us support Bush over the Dem alternatives isn't lack of inforrmation, it's a core disagreement on basic premises and the way we view the world. You can present all the information you want, and if passes our bozo filters (because as well as being informed and educated we're also skeptical) we will absorb it and process it, but you and we still are looking at the world through very different lenses. Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles is a good overview of what I'm talking about.

I can't see where GWB can lose frankly. Running as the anti-GWB isn't going to get you elected. I see absolutely no vision from ANY of the Democratic candidates. I have a feeling this is going to be the dirtiest campaign yet though. Calling GWB names and calling him "chimp" and stupid are really childish and fly in the face GWB IS BEATING THE CRAP OUTA YOU! I say the DNC buy a clue and offer us a VISION that is based is reality and not 1 second sound bites. Hell, I didn't vote for Bush last election but you know what? I will vote for him this next time around because he has PROVEN himself a man to get things done. I mean, you know where this guy stands..very unusual for a President or elected official.

cusbilla

JL:



Yes he has raised a lot of money lately instead of having time to attending some funeral services for soliders he sent to Iraq.

Also, I see where he must be getting nervous, he is spending some money on some 60 seconds spots

cusbilla:



Yes, only Bush is using 60 second sound bites now

Yes, you are right. We know where Bush stands.

1. Lied about wmds in Iraq.

2. Lied about connection between 9/11 and Saddam

3. Lied about the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.

4. Told the truth about "bring them on". Because the terrorist are sure coming,more and more everyday.


Yes if Bush DOUBLES up on terms . Americans will DOUBLE up in pain.

Link please? That's new news to me. Or maybe it's not true.

Heh, it's revealing when Bush supporters brag about all the rich special interest folks supporting the campaign. The message is that small potato people don't count.

Oh well, carry on.

Popeye,



1. Yes, every other country before the war lied as well. Interesting fantasy.

2. Hmm..seems to me the jury is still out on this one. It appears that Iraq gave significant technical assistance to Al Queda.

3. Hmm..a link please. Evrything points to this being the crew on that ship doing it.

4. Hmm..seems like a ton of terrorists attacks are happening every day here in America.

cusbilla

PS If you want to hate GWB please have some facts. I didn't even vote for the guy and half the crap out there is just that.

I got this one: Bush incorrectly disavows 'Mission Accomplished' banner shown in May

Did you actually read what it said? Thank you for being wrong and admitting it.

cusbilla

That quote is from the article. So who paid for the sign? Nobody knows.

Yeah, right. Like there isn't a paper trail. I swear (and often) that this administration takes us all for idiots.

BTW, where is the link to the Dean story that he's renigged on taking public campaign funds? Well? I am waiting for what looks like a bald-faced lie to be supported.

If no support is given within this thread, then I'll just chalk it up as a lie and move on.

AM:

I agree with you concerning the paper trail for the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". The receipt probably was lost somewhere. A safe place that no one will ever find.

To tell you the truth, I believe that about as much as the whole episode concerning the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/...ain580661.shtml



In conclusion,I believe the Bush adminstrations story about the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign as much as I do about the ARRIVING IN A JET.

It is so very nice to have a truthful adminstration. Now I can sleep peacefully at night. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

If this is best argument you can come up with...ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Gotta love you DEMS. You guys make every election dirty and interesting.

cusbilla

My personal bias says no, but I'll play devil's advocate It is possible for him to serve a second term, but he would have to have Osama Bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein turn up alive and on the evening news. If you have one of those guys in custody, it will help a lot of people reconcile our casualties with our missions. Yes, they have said this war is much larger than two individuals, but at the same time, who would deny they aren't important?