Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him?
- Thread starter CrAzyOttER
- Start date
- Status
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
No, your humor does not offend me at all. please continue to add
your input to these threads as all opinions have value. It is more honest to make statements based upon what you believe as opposed to what you think won't offend anyone!
Here is Bush addressing the Gonzales - Ashcroft incident
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0HEKTr6wrc"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
"Hey, I am doing what has to be done" !!! :toofunny:
MrTotality
Banned
Didnt vote for him twice, wouldnt start in '08
smc252
Member
Bush is a bastard, I can not BELIEVE people on here would even consider voting him back in. He's so ignorant. Even Tenant said Bush was dead set on war for no apparent reason, no matter the intel. Terrorism is a problem and always has been but you can not fight evil with more evil.
War does NOT = Freedom! And that is coming from someone who's grandparents and dad all fought in either the Korean war and/or Vietnam. I was raised to be a "military brat" my whole life. I loved playing GI Joe and wanted to be a pilot in the Air Force when I grew up. I will gladly die for our freedom and the life of loved ones, but I will not die because our leaders view me as a pawn in their personal vendetta.
War does NOT = Freedom! And that is coming from someone who's grandparents and dad all fought in either the Korean war and/or Vietnam. I was raised to be a "military brat" my whole life. I loved playing GI Joe and wanted to be a pilot in the Air Force when I grew up. I will gladly die for our freedom and the life of loved ones, but I will not die because our leaders view me as a pawn in their personal vendetta.
smc252
Member
And this is exactly is what is wrong with the entire world, not just our nation's political party!
I wish candidates really cared as much as they pretend to. It's now a war of who has the most money and thus popularity in order to get into office. How democratic is that? Once they are in office, they have that selective memory for what they promised us they would do. :trout: Nobody does a damn thing about population control and the severe damage we have already done to our planet. We will pay in the coming years for all we have done. Even scientists are seeing disturbing trends.
No "messiah" is coming to save us and fix the **** we have done, it's all on us. People need to see this before we can move forward. :study:
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
We will pay in the coming years for all we have done. Even scientists are seeing disturbing trends.
Wow that's a real bummer...
What will we be paying and to whom ?
Could there be any chance you could be wrong about the doom of our world?
smc252
Member
:nono: Very funny
The world is not doomed, come on. I am just saying, every action we take has an opposing reaction 
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
:nono: Very funny
I was kidding too, but then I heard about this;
Invalid Link Removed
BigPapaPoo2k
New member
Didn't vote for him the first two times, wouldn't start now.
Thrall
Member
I'm sorry you feel that way, you must be very misinformed. The only thing he stands up for are his own personal financial interests and those of the New World Order.
dbol
Banned
i'm sorry you feel that way. i guess i will just have to be part of his new world order all by myself
Chad
Banned
:goodpost: :clap2:
dbol
Banned
If he posted "I hate America" i'm sure you would give that a clap to. I thought big muscular guys like us were suppose to be tough, not a bunch of liberal pansies. guess i was wrong
Thrall
Member
I think you have a skewed image of what patriotism is. You also don't seem to like to do your own thinking. Neither will get you anywhere, but to each his own.
Its also funny how you lump "big muscular guys" into some ridiculous stereotype. You must live in tv land. Been to Green Acres lately?
Rufio
Member
It's really sad that so many people have world views as retarded as this. It's obvious this guy cares more about the 'image' of his politcal views than the consequences.
dbol
Banned
sorry guys, i just put america first. i know how much you must hate that as a fellow american
Chad
Banned
hey bitc h i was in the U.S Marine Corps! INFANTRY!!!
dont tell me $hit about hating America!
dbol
Banned
they let gays in the military?
Chad
Banned
LOL!! you are a funny guy! enjoy your short stay in this board.
Chad
Banned
yeah and they let cokehead rednecks into the white house too!:hammer:
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
John Kerry and Al Gore were designated losers. They along with Bob Dole existed only to create the illusion that there was a choice!
Al Gore was not endorsed by Bill Clinton, how embarrassing after 8 years of being Clinton's vice president!!! Loser !
John Kerry both George Bush's cousin and Fraternity mate!
WTF out of 300 million people Bush runs against his own cousin !
Kerry let the Bush people make him out to be the "coward" in the campaign even though he was actually in Vietnam, while Bush was.., well nobody is really sure where? something about missing records!
Kerry spent 20 million dollars on anti voter fraud systems, then conceded the election with out even considering the Ohio ballots !! WTF !!!
Al Gore was not endorsed by Bill Clinton, how embarrassing after 8 years of being Clinton's vice president!!! Loser !
John Kerry both George Bush's cousin and Fraternity mate!
WTF out of 300 million people Bush runs against his own cousin !
Kerry let the Bush people make him out to be the "coward" in the campaign even though he was actually in Vietnam, while Bush was.., well nobody is really sure where? something about missing records!
Kerry spent 20 million dollars on anti voter fraud systems, then conceded the election with out even considering the Ohio ballots !! WTF !!!
slow-mun
Well-known member
:head: I was an airborne medic in the 504th PIR. Just wanted to point out that Kerry also put himself in for some of his own awards from Vietnam, As a combat veteran, let me tell everyone that that is some pathetic crap. Just my $00.02...........
Nullifidian
Banned
You can't win with no success condition. WInning means achieving success. We haven't defined what success is so how can we ever achieve it.
Additionally we are NOT in a war. We have not been to war since WWII. Military action, yes, but not war. There IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Heck, we havent' even defined an opponent in this "war."
And how can you say he was trying to divert attention with cruise missiles when he was launching them at Osama Bin Laden. His intelligence reports made a mistake. The SAME MISTAKE THAT BUSH MADE AT TH START OF THE IRAQ INVASION.
At the start of the Iraq invasion, Bush ordered the bombing of a farm on a river in Iraq. His intel said Saddam was vacationing there. His intel also said tehre was a bunker there. So he had 2 stealth bombers go in and drop bunker busters on the farm.
It turns out that the only people there at the time were a bunch of servants, no one else. Approximately 500 people there, most of them killed in the blast. And what they thought was a bunker turned out to jsut be a winecellar. Nice. To top it off, because of that bombing, it compeltely blew our surprise advantage in the invasion. Plus it gave Saddam extra time to escape. Awesome job.
Additionally we are NOT in a war. We have not been to war since WWII. Military action, yes, but not war. There IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Heck, we havent' even defined an opponent in this "war."
And how can you say he was trying to divert attention with cruise missiles when he was launching them at Osama Bin Laden. His intelligence reports made a mistake. The SAME MISTAKE THAT BUSH MADE AT TH START OF THE IRAQ INVASION.
At the start of the Iraq invasion, Bush ordered the bombing of a farm on a river in Iraq. His intel said Saddam was vacationing there. His intel also said tehre was a bunker there. So he had 2 stealth bombers go in and drop bunker busters on the farm.
It turns out that the only people there at the time were a bunch of servants, no one else. Approximately 500 people there, most of them killed in the blast. And what they thought was a bunker turned out to jsut be a winecellar. Nice. To top it off, because of that bombing, it compeltely blew our surprise advantage in the invasion. Plus it gave Saddam extra time to escape. Awesome job.
Nullifidian
Banned
If you cannot define your opponent you cannot declare war on them. You can, through covert operations and police efforts thwart them or combat them when you uncover them, but you cannot declare war on them. Conventional warfare only works against armies, not terrorist cells.
Empty rhetoric. Typical, "if you don't follow Bush without question, the terrorists win!"
The most UNAmerican thing anyone cna ever do is obey without question.
I invoke Godwin's Law
No you only see the underbelly, you don't see the real world, you see the worst side of the world and nothing else.
Again, rhetoric. You see things in black and white. Us against them even when you don't even know who the heck "them" is. You'd rather shoot first and ask questionis later. You ignore all the things which actually cause terrorism in the first place. You ignore the conditions which allow increases in recruitment by terrorist groups.
Combatting terrorism through police action worked for 200 years. The use of military blunt force is now proving to not only be ineffective, but to actually contribute to increased enrollment in terrorist groups and increase the number of terrorist which are more likely to target the US specifically. THAT is directly from our very own CIA.
Nullifidian
Banned
Translation: you've given up. You don't want to respond because you have no vali response.
Terrorists are small individual cells and camps. You cannot fight those with a big lumbering conventional army.
Never said you murder innocents, just said that blindly agreeing with the President or administration without question is UNAMERICAN. Even more UnAmerican is demanding others do the same.
Appeal to Fear fallacy
MrTotality
Banned
Not trying to disrespect here but this is the downright silliest thing I have ever heard. Was he a horrible, sociopathic lunatic? Of Course. Does that make your statement even remotley close to valid? Not in the least. He was in power from '79 until we got there, and the numbers of those killed do not support your statement in the least. Please, when you are trying to build a case for your argument, make sure you realize whether you have one shred of fact in it.
D_town
Registered User
WOW, you know your history...
Or not.
There are numerous similar instances in the lives of Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. From there experiences in life, to there dictator beliefs, to there slaughter of those without disregard for human life.
Were they carbon copies of one another-- absolutely not, but if you cannot see similarities and you cannot fathom the future that Saddam would have created had he been in power, then you are not looking very keenly my friend.
The even bigger problem today is that there are numerous men in our world today that have the same sort of desires of the Third Reich and much of the world does not seem to care.
D_town
Registered User
I have all but given this thread up as well.
There are two types of us in America.
Republicans and Democrats... the boundaries are clear as day.
It is a damn shame that there is no blending of the two... except Joe Lieberman and Dennis Miller.
Even if I were in favor of greater taxation and partial-birth abortion and gay marriage, which I am not, I would still not want to quit the fight in Iraq. The way it's being fought needs help (through better warfare and more education); however leaving would create more problems for my son's son. I want it over before I die.
Rufio
Member
The US embargo on Iraq killed far more people, especially children, than Saddam ever did. Bush's cabinet, and by that I mean people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, were the ones who supplied Saddam with the power to kill so many people in the first place. Does that make the US leaders like Hitler?
As for Clinton, yes he was brutal as well. I don't support the majority of his black ops, but the idea that he engaged in them as a diversion from his "crimes" is ludicrous. The reasons were mostly imperialistic, same as the majority of politicians' motivations.
The war in Iraq is about controlling the oil and thus maintaining veto power over Europe and Asia. This is extremely obvious. Bush and his cabinet have pardoned terrorists and supported dictatorships. You're living in a pure fantasy if you don't think this is more about power than "freedom."
That being said, yes Clinton and other Democrats have taken part in plenty of atrocities. Bush is unique however in that he doesn't even try to be diplomatic on the surface. His foreign policy is pretty extreme in its brashness.
As for Clinton, yes he was brutal as well. I don't support the majority of his black ops, but the idea that he engaged in them as a diversion from his "crimes" is ludicrous. The reasons were mostly imperialistic, same as the majority of politicians' motivations.
The war in Iraq is about controlling the oil and thus maintaining veto power over Europe and Asia. This is extremely obvious. Bush and his cabinet have pardoned terrorists and supported dictatorships. You're living in a pure fantasy if you don't think this is more about power than "freedom."
That being said, yes Clinton and other Democrats have taken part in plenty of atrocities. Bush is unique however in that he doesn't even try to be diplomatic on the surface. His foreign policy is pretty extreme in its brashness.
Chad
Banned
fight and die for WHAT? you are not really going to tell me that you think all the troops that have died in Iraq did so " Protecting Freedom" are you? cause thats bull$hit. i dont care if you`re airborn or not. Infantry gets most of the KIA`s. This war should never of happend. we had no intel to show they had WMD and our little buddy Bush just wanted to go play with his toys in the sand. 70% of the people in the U.S want us out of Iraq. it doesn`t matter if we`ll look bad by leaving or if Iraq burns to the ground. tax payers are the boss. bush doesn`t seem to understand that. if the people want us out then we leave.
Nullifidian
Banned
Translation: you've given up
You don't know anything about me so you can't exactly say what my background is. I can however point to history in my favor.
You haven't been there and done that. You haven't eliminated terrorism. You haven't been a policy maker. You haven't been in a position of government. All you've done is follow orders.
Appeal to fear fallacy
Appeal to emotion fallacy
Appeal to emotion fallacy.
Getting upset about an event does not increase one's wisdom. Far from it. It is in fact more likely to make you more impulsive and less reasoned or logical.
I forgot to add:
GODWIN'S LAW. STOP WITH THE SILLY INNAPROPRIATE REFERENCES TO HITLER OR NAZIS. IT'S JUST AN APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACY.
Chad
Banned
out of what loop? i got out of the Marines in Feb of this year. i did so because im not going to let my son grow up without his father because JW wants to " stay the corse ".
A LOT of guys are getting out, going AWOL/UA and just not joining b/c this war is bull$hit. there is NOTHING good that will come in the end of this. this has been a waste of money, time and most importantly U.S lives.
slow-mun
Well-known member
Somehow, I think I may have ran accross you in Afghanistan in early '03. I could be wrong, but your credentials seem about right.
Chad
Banned
well i thank you for saving lives but you shouldn`t be doing it there. not for these reasons.
Rufio
Member
The death toll for the 11-year US embargo on Iraq was over 1.3 million people, mostly children. The US also had a part in quite a few of Saddam's atrocities.
Every country does similar things.
But he didn't kill nearly as many children as the US embargo which Albright stated was "worth it."
Reagan's regime commited what amounts to genocide in Latin America. If you look at the sheer amount of US embargos stopping ceasefires, it looks very much like the Palestinians and people of Gaza among other places have been subject to genocide.
You can find examples of this among virtually any industrialized country.
So are the Bushes. See Orlando Bosch and Luis Posado Carrilles.
Do you mean nukes or things like chemical warfare? He obviously did NOT have nukes. Not that it would be any less of an act of aggression if he DID have nukes. Several countries have nukes, but preventative war is still a blatant violation of international law. It's considered against international law to invade a country just because it doesn't like you and has weapons.
Although if you believe that Iraq had nukes, I wonder why they didn't actually use them during the invasion.
I'm aware that the Ba'athist party looked up to Hitler, but I've never heard of Hitler being Saddam's #1 hero. In fact, from what I've read Saddam got his blueprint for running a country from the Godfather movies.
Now you sound like Ann Coulter. The US is allied with Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the Middle East. They WERE allied with Saddam until the Kuwait incident threatened oil control. Look at the long list of genocide and torture that the US, Britain, Israel, etc. have racked up.
If your point is that Saddam was a bad man, I agree. However, I feel much the same way about virtually ALL world leaders. If you think his track record of bloodshed is outstanding compared to the rest of the world, you need to do some research.
By the way, a war of aggression such as Iraq IS a liberal move in the traditional sense. Neocons are not real conservatives as the word was used for most of history. I'm not saying Democrats are much better though.
smc252
Member
It's good to see intelligent discussion, just try not to make things personal. We all have somewhat different opinions. We can all learn something from eachother if we let go of our egos and beliefs.
I see a lot of finger pointing between the left and right. But honestly, who gives a crap about parties, we need to take a step back and see the whole picture. Most Americans vote for a party just because their father taught them that it was the party of choice when they were young.
We are human, and thus, not at all perfect. We are ALL flawed by greed, corruption, hatred...etc Instead of being angry at the situation, and eachother, I think we all need to just concentrate on the future. What can we do? And what SHOULD we be doing right now? I think we can all agree war is not going to fix **** over night. We have to find a common ground to deal with terrorism. We are pissing off the rest of the world with our actions, whether they be right or wrong.
I see a lot of finger pointing between the left and right. But honestly, who gives a crap about parties, we need to take a step back and see the whole picture. Most Americans vote for a party just because their father taught them that it was the party of choice when they were young.
We are human, and thus, not at all perfect. We are ALL flawed by greed, corruption, hatred...etc Instead of being angry at the situation, and eachother, I think we all need to just concentrate on the future. What can we do? And what SHOULD we be doing right now? I think we can all agree war is not going to fix **** over night. We have to find a common ground to deal with terrorism. We are pissing off the rest of the world with our actions, whether they be right or wrong.
Rufio
Member
Bush is allied with Saudi Arabia
Bush is protecting the Cuban terrorist Luis Posado Carrilles
Bush Sr. presidentially pardoned the Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch
Bush basically left Aghanistan in the hands of the warlords whose presence led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place
As for the "liberal media," it's funny how quickly they unite when someone attacks American foreign policy as a whole. For instance, Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez.
Chavez's "devil" comment was presented as a literal claim, and taken out of context as if to imply that he wants to attack America. This is despite the fact that his entire speech was a a rant against militarism and imperialism.
Ward Churchill was demonized as supporting 9/11 by taking snippets of his essay out of context, when his actual point was in comparing 9/11 to the many similar atrocities the US has commited on Middle Eastern civilians. He was condemning atrocities in general but it's been presented by the "liberal media" as him supporting 9/11.
And why didn't the "liberal media" cover NSDP 51?
The truth is that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to concentrating power and don't mind killing innocent civilians to do so. They like to present the other side as well-meaning but inept, but when someone questions the nobility of their intentions both sides of the media become united pretty quickly. The issues like gay marriage and abortion are distractions from the real problems in the world.
Having a party loyalty is entirely undemocratic. It's a way of narrowing debate and information that the public recieves to a comfortable level.
Bush is protecting the Cuban terrorist Luis Posado Carrilles
Bush Sr. presidentially pardoned the Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch
Bush basically left Aghanistan in the hands of the warlords whose presence led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place
As for the "liberal media," it's funny how quickly they unite when someone attacks American foreign policy as a whole. For instance, Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez.
Chavez's "devil" comment was presented as a literal claim, and taken out of context as if to imply that he wants to attack America. This is despite the fact that his entire speech was a a rant against militarism and imperialism.
Ward Churchill was demonized as supporting 9/11 by taking snippets of his essay out of context, when his actual point was in comparing 9/11 to the many similar atrocities the US has commited on Middle Eastern civilians. He was condemning atrocities in general but it's been presented by the "liberal media" as him supporting 9/11.
And why didn't the "liberal media" cover NSDP 51?
The truth is that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to concentrating power and don't mind killing innocent civilians to do so. They like to present the other side as well-meaning but inept, but when someone questions the nobility of their intentions both sides of the media become united pretty quickly. The issues like gay marriage and abortion are distractions from the real problems in the world.
Having a party loyalty is entirely undemocratic. It's a way of narrowing debate and information that the public recieves to a comfortable level.
Rufio
Member
The rest of the world is pissed off mainly because the US has set a new precedent for defying international law and because they're hording veto power. That's the real issue IMO. Places like China could conveivably become new superpowers, and the US is fighting it by trying to horde control of the oil that they depend on. Terrorism is a much smaller threat in the minds of the people in power. The big issue is the threat of the US having rivals in power.
The way terrorism is brought up now is different than it was during the days of Carlos the Jackal or Pablo Escobar. Back then there were clearly defined targets. Now it's addressed as an abstract concept, similar to the "War on Drugs." You really can't win a war on terrorism. Terrorism has always been around and always will be around. In fact, we engage in it. IMO the very idea of a war on terrorism, like the war on drugs, is a talking point to allow for endless war for whatever purpose.
Invalid Link Removed
D_town
Registered User
I disagree.
We don't want superpowers, such as Iran or North Korea.
We welcome superpowers, such as UK, most of Europe and Russia.
And if terroism is abstract, should we do nothing when an embassy or train is bombed or an attack takes place on our soil? Shall we not persue justice whereever that may take us. We expect any country who agrees with us to comply and help. Is that too much to ask?
Terrostists and rogue nations have zero regard for any law. So, do you insist that we do not do what is neccesary?
Rufio
Member
No we don't. That's the real reason why France is against the war. They had an oil deal with Saddam that the US declared null and void.
The US would not want any part of Europe gaining power to rival the US. What they want are governments they essentially have puppet control over like the UK and Israel.
It's too much to ask when your own country commits much greater acts upon the rest of the world and you're invading a country that didn't attack you. Although the rest of the world doesn't really care about that, except for the Middle Eastern civilians who've died from US intervention for the past 50 years. The rest of the world cares about the US hording power.
How do you define "terrorists" and "rogue nations?" Do you want to compare the atrocities of the US and its allies to whatever "rogue nations" you could come up with? The truth is that no country has any regard for law. The US is pretty high up there when it comes to defying international law.
I believe in fighting terrorism, yes. That also includes the US' own terrorism against the Middle East, which has a much longer and bloodier history. I'm against imperialism and dictatorships, including BOTH the ones the US has attacked and the ones it's supported and taken part in.
Iraq, however, did not attack the US. The US attacked Iraq. Iraq was not behind 9/11. The US however was behind the embargo that killed over a million Iraqi civilians and did take part in several of Saddam's atrocities. The real issue is not "rogue nations", "terrorism," or "freedom." Those are merely code-words for "countries we like" and "countries we don't like." The real issue is distribution of world power.
If you don't believe me, please read up on the US' history with Saddam in the 80's, or their relationship with Saudi Arabia right now. Look at how often the US has vetoed UN resolutions, even when over 100 other nations signed them. The United States, like all other major world powers, likes throwing its power around.
You're living in an idealistic world if you really think the US and its allies don't dabble in the same kinds of atrocities as its enemies.
smc252
Member
It seems pretty simple to me, but I am sure others will disagree...
Terrorism has ALWAYS had deep roots in religion. Religion has been used over and over to control and influence people since the begining of time. It has poisoned earth; so many people die and kill in the name of it. It's all about power and fear, and thus control. There's obviously more to it, I don't have all the answers
As for the beheadings,
In the end where does that get them? What does it do besides sending the message that they are totally nuts and have lost all touch with reality. It's the definition of insanity; repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
The only thing that comes to my mind when watching any of the beheadings is how cowardly and pointless it is.
Terrorism has ALWAYS had deep roots in religion. Religion has been used over and over to control and influence people since the begining of time. It has poisoned earth; so many people die and kill in the name of it. It's all about power and fear, and thus control. There's obviously more to it, I don't have all the answers
As for the beheadings,
In the end where does that get them? What does it do besides sending the message that they are totally nuts and have lost all touch with reality. It's the definition of insanity; repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
The only thing that comes to my mind when watching any of the beheadings is how cowardly and pointless it is.
Nullifidian
Banned
Who are "they" of which you speak?
I see a whole lot of talk of the mysterious "them" without a whole lot of explaination of who "them" is.
I see a whole lot of talk of the mysterious "them" without a whole lot of explaination of who "them" is.
Terrorism has ALWAYS had deep roots in religion. Religion has been used over and over to control and influence people since the begining of time. It has poisoned earth; so many people die and kill in the name of it. It's all about power and fear, and thus control. There's obviously more to it, I don't have all the answers
As for the beheadings,
In the end where does that get them? What does it do besides sending the message that they are totally nuts and have lost all touch with reality. It's the definition of insanity; repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
The only thing that comes to my mind when watching any of the beheadings is how cowardly and pointless it is.
Rufio
Member
1. Waging a blatant war of aggression as defned by international law
2. Evading prisoner of war procedures by shipping people to internment camps in Cuba, indefinitely held with no trial
3. Seizing a hospital in Falujah and kicking out the patients, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions
4. Demanding a cut-off of supplies to Afghani civilians that, by some estimates could've starved millions. I don't believe it was ever reported how that turned out, but luckily millions didn't starve. Regardless, cutting off supplies needed to feed millions of civilians could be considered a crime against humanity
That's just recently of course.
I think "terrorist nations" is a misnomer. All countries support or punish terrorism depending on how convenient it is, including the US. The US has allied with terrorists including Osama Bin Laden, the US mafia (in an attempt to assassinate Castro), Los Pepes, etc. on several occasions.
I believe that international law should apply to all countries equally and that we shouldn't ignored our own atrocities. There should be an attempt to pressure the leaders of all countries to abide by international law. The first step to that is getting people in every country to acknowledge their own leaders' crimes.
In general I'm against imperialism, international mass murder, etc. and I think it's inevitable that there will be new superpowers. IMO the US is trying to prevent this instead of preparing for it, and that's one of the biggest factors behind the deaths of millions of people.
Rufio
Member
No, what I said is that the US leaders speak of terrorism as an abstract concept. See the Youtube I linked. Bush went on about how he doesn't spend much time thinking about Osama Bin Laden, claiming that "terrorism is bigger than one person." It was pretty obvious that he didn't give a **** about Osama and wanted to move on to talking about Iraq.
Here's a pretty good article on the people whose views have dominated US international politics for quite awhile:
Invalid Link Removed
Although IMO Clinton pretty much followed their doctrines as well, although he sounded more diplomatic in speeches.
smc252
Member
The terrorist fruit-cakes, and the *******s that distill such hatred and fear in them, of course. Who else would I have been talking about?
- Status