Jim Colyer

Bush detractors are very selfish people. They have forgotten about the events of 9/11, 2001, when terrorists flew hijacked planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, killing 3000 innocent civilians. They care nothing for the American and British troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress threatens to cut off funds and thereby deny them the food, supplies and equipment they need to carry out their work. Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and Dodd care far less about the United States than they do the Democratic Party. All they want is to embarass Bush if they can and try to win back the White House. They are still trying to even up for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Fact is, George Bush and Tony Blair have stood like two giants since 9/11. They have defended America and the U.K. from blood-thirsty savages who have no regard for human life, not even their own. An anonymous man at the Twin Towers challenged Bush to do "whatever it takes," and Bush is doing just that. WMD is meaningless. So is "fighting over there." What mattered after 9/11 was retaliation (not revenge). Bush had to kick the biggest Muslim butt, and Saddam Hussein had the biggest Muslim butt. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to step down. He refused and paid the consequences. Bush knew hard times were coming. He knew his actions were taken with future generations of Americans in mind. They are the ones who will write the history of the early 21st century. They are the ones who will appreciate Bush and that he did what had to be done to break the will of jihadists and religious fanatics worldwide who would destroy America. It is not over yet. It may be a long struggle. But America will triumph as she did in World War II and the Cold War. Decency, human rights, science and progress for all humanity must and will prevail.

Indian Summer

What does the events of September 11th have to do with the war in Iraq?

What do the lives of individual soldiers have to do with people willing to stand up and say, "Look, Bush made a mistake?"

What does the collective "Muslim butt" have to do with the dozen + extremists involved in 9/11?

What does Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11?

Lexis

Oh please....you start your post by making insulting, inaccurate generalizations and show your bigotry by suggesting this whole War on Terror is about "kicking Muslim butt".

By the way, you do know that suicide bombers struck in London less than two years ago don't you? You know they killed more than 50 innocent people. Let's not pretend we're in a freakin bubble of safety right now because of Bush and Blair's actions.

Indian Summer

Ah, yes, and the morning after a celebration, too. Those victims went to bed rejoicing winning the 2012 games and woke up to the last day of their lives. Lovely.

Papri

How the hell did Saddam Hussain have the "biggest" Muslim butt? Surely a more obvious target would have been Iran? Or Afghanistan...(no wait, we failed to complete our mission there which was to find Osama, right?)

How does the War on Terror fit in with kicking aforementioned "Muslim butt"? AFAIK the only butt that needed to be kicked was Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda - not an entire group of religious followers amassing 1.3 billion (see here)

How are WMDs "meaningless" when that was the false pretext for the USA and Britain going to war especially as there were no WMDs as has since been admitted?

"Stood like giants" my ass. They misled their respective militaries into a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 under a false guise.

And as for roping in the Clinton impeachment - are you for real?!

Indian Summer

I want to know how this study of Muslim butts was conducted. Was size judged on the person's butt's circumfrence? Width? Height? Volume? Weight?

Papri, I'm honestly not sure this poster... is for real. There's something very trollish about this whole thread.

Papri

Yeah, it is very trollish. But there are some very pertinant questions that we riased that I feel should be addressed...

sunnykerr

Or maybe they actually remember the events of 9/11 and July 7, 2005, and they want to see the actual people actually responsible for these events made to suffer. Not, you know, the ones who had nothing to do with them and not, you know, our own guys.

People who don't like Bush don't like soldiers? When did Bush become all soldiers? And Congress is not threatening to cut off funds at all. They simply want the government to set an exit strategy so that, you know, troops don't just keep being sent in to die.

Not to mention that where this money allocated to the "troops" is being spent, nobody knows. Because the troops' armor certainly isn't getting any the more appropriate. And the soldiers themselves are certainly not getting paid any the more.

Hm, right... I'd just say that I don't see what's wrong with a political party trying to elect one of its members to the highest office in the country. Isn't that their job? Also, speaking from someone who doesn't live in the U.S., I'd also say Bush doesn't need any help embarassing himself.

I'd echo Lexis's point that July 7, 2005, certainly happened since then. So I don't see where the defending thing comes in. Also, I certainly can see how invading Iraq falls under the "whatever" category, but how did it help again? Nobody in Iraq was connected to 9/11. Heck, not that he was a good man by any definition, but, under Saddam, any organization (including al-Qaeda) who could potentially rival Saddam's power was systematically stamped out of the country.

Except that WMDs are why Bush said he was sending troops over there. Because, you know, of how it threatened U.S. security. In the wake of 9/11 and all. So now that he's found there were none, as he had been told numerous times by numerous intelligence agencies before, of course it's not about WMDs. Now.

And Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Terrorists were. Al-Qaeda was. Osama ben Ladin was.

But, let's say you still want to blame a religion for what happened... wouldn't the biggest "Muslim butt" (and, yeah, I, too, would like to know how anyone goes about measuring that) be in Saudi Arabia where, you know, all but one of the hijackers were from?

And can you even count Saddam as an actual Muslim? Not that I ever knew him personally, but I'd assume someone who fostered such a heavy cult of his personality throughout his land and ruled like such a demagogue would kinda lapse in the personal religion department...

No doubt Saddam paid the consequences for not stepping down. But then so did the whole country. And what foreign leader ever has the right to tell another country's leader they have to step down or else? Because, if that's like a law somewhere, I'd vote for telling Mugabe to step down or else. Or Kim Jong Il. Oh, but wait, it's not a law is it? In fact, there is a law that says that every state has sovereignty over its own territory.

What Bush is doing, and what history will show, is very simple. In times of crisis, you keep your authority by quickly finding someone to blame and going after this enemy. You give the people someone to fear, so that they unite in fear of this scary monster and forget to look at the problems going on. They forget the economy being down the toilet, they forget the health-care and educational systems being in shambles, they don't think of the mismanagement of their affairs by a government elected to represent their best interests. Because they think their very survival is threatened.

That's what Bush is doing. And, I'll give you that, he's doing it very well.

America triumphed in the Second World War? America triumphed in the Second World War??? Nobody's denying that heroic things were done by America and Americans in the Second World War.

But, on this day a few days after the 90th anniversary of Vimy, let us remember what the words "world war" refer to, okay?

Lexis

OK, Sunny? You rock. That is all.

-res cogitans-

on you and bush.

Jacob1983

Who freakin cares, honestly? I mean Bush has like a year and a half left as being president. Then he will be gone and you liberals and Bush haters can have orgasms or a party or whatever. Just let Bush finish out his job and he will probably go away into the abyss. I do think Bush should try to do certain things that could give himself some dignity and respect i.e. hope that our guys catch Bin Laden and start sending our troops home from Iraq. If Bush could do those two things then I bet his legacy would look a little better.

chicah

I doubt Bush's legacy would look much better. He has already been named the worst president throughout history by many people (which I think is a bit over the top - I mean, we don't know if an even bigger idiot will be elected some time into the future), and he has done lots of bad things. I do not think he will disappear into the abyss, I think he'll disappear into the history books as the man who ruined the relationship between the Arab and the Western world forever. I think he will be remembered as the man who did not care how many Iraqi civilians ro American soldiers that died as long as he could get the country's oil. He'll be the man who denied global warming even though all proofs pointed towards it. He'll be the man who reinvented the word fear, and changed the meaning to different. He will be remembered for his astonishing job as supporting some of the most violent regimes in the world, as long as he gained from it (for instance Israel - not that he's the first, sadly), he will be remembered for stamping a whole religion terrorism.

Gee, yes. He sure did hell of a job.

elisheva

I have to say, I don't think that's a very reasoned viewpoint. A little over the top, don't you think?

Indian Summer

A year and a half. That's an incredibly long time, Jacob. I don't know if you don't realize that. In a year in a half, our national debt will increase dramatically, thousands of mothers will lose their sons in Iraq. Approximately 8 million babies will be born in the United States, 8 million new lives will begin, and at least 16 million more (the parents') will change forever. This isn't a "blink and you miss it" time frame. Thousands more will lose their jobs, go on food stamps, have their homes foreclosed upon, become homeless.

Jacob1983

Indiansummer, what's wrong with people having babies? Are you saying we should outlaw child birth? And please don't blame me for US troops dying in Iraq. I have no control over who lives and dies.

America's national debt is irrelevant. The country is in debt up to its eyeball yet it still functions. I laugh at Bush haters who have orgasms and love to whine about the national debt. Honestly, if it was such a horrible problem then why does America still function?

Bush is the worst president ever? You really sure about that? How about Herbert Hoover? I think it's a little irrational and convenient to label Bush as the worst president ever.

So babies being born, people losing their jobs, and human beings dying in general are all the fault of Bush? Is that what you're saying?