House of cardsFollow

[b][/b]ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE MY OPINION ONLY[u][/u]

I knew from the moment it was announced that Bush "won" the election, that we as a country would wind up in war. I mean, c'mon...it's in his blood. He wanted to pick up where daddy left off. Even I never would have guessed that Bush had the capacity to sink the US into the hole that he has.

IF all these reports are true, and everything is there to back them up...then...I truly cannont describe the feeling knowing that Bush LIED to start a war. Oh, I'm sure it's not the first time someone has done this, nor will it probably be the last...but is there no line this man won't cross? I mean, seriously...what IS this man's (tragically flawed) ideal of American Society?

If ever any president DESERVED to be assassinated, this man is a perfect candidate.

I suppose to some people it was. A lot of people in this country actually believed all the crap that Bush handed out about Iraq being a threat to this country. Some people still do.

Psychojester,
It needs to be highlighted that what you wrote comes dangerously close to criminal. The discussion of the killing of a sitting president draws not only the attention of the authorities, but can open you up to charges as well. The Secret Service takes scoffingly flippant comments like those quite seriously.

Totem

Making statements like that IS considered a federal offense.

I would never wish death on the man. But I bet I could take him in a fist fight.

i think he was talking about a head-to-head deathmatch over a LAN..this is a gaming board ya know. (sorry...felt someone had to stick up for him and couldn't think of any other way to do it).

That's the great thing about being a British citizen. You guys can probably get away with that.

Hi im an un-original ******* who has no opinion about anything because they havent taught me how to do that yet in remedial finger paints. I just hope if I do a search of "Bush" and "Iraq" on google and post the results I will be vaguley associated with something interesting.

Power of suggestion, inciting, something similar. I think that's the crux of how they'd try to handle that. Similarly to the way they go after clerics who incite cells to martyrdom.

/shrug

Old news really. Or I should say, old news being brought up again because there's no new news that works (and we've got to distract folks from the battering that Kerry's getting right now).

Several points:

1. Two people is not "all these people". Certainly, you can find two people somewhere, even in Washington (heck. Especially in Washington) who will have a view in opposition to the administration. If you don't think Kay and Clark have their own agendas, think again.

2. Contrary to popular belief, we did not go to war with Iraq soley based on a single statement Bush made in a single speach. I'm fairly sure that Congress did not vote to declare war based on a single page of paper with the words: "We know Iraq has WMDs" written on it. While I'm obviously not a member of congress, I would assume they were handed huge piles of papers and reports with evidence of a great many things about Iraq which when taken in total led to the decision to vote for war.

3. Whether Bush "ignored" the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11 or not will probably be debated for decades to come. And we'll probably never have a good answer. However, I will suggest that he's only being charged with "ignoring the threat of terrorism" because 9/11 happened during his term. That's 20/20 hindsight folks. Bush did no more or less "ignoring" of the threat of terrorism then any other president for the last 20+ years. However, one can argue substantially that he did not ignore terrorism *after* the events of 9/11. Cold comfort to those who died on that day, but I suppose the loss of lives in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, and the first WTC bombing just wasn't as much of a hardship, right? While it would be nice to be forward thinking, most of human history is the story of what people do in response to something, not in anticipation of it. I don't think you can crucify Bush on this issue IMO. It puts him in the same category as such "horrible" presidents as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.



Dunno. If there was some new information in there, it might be more interesting. As it is, it really just looks like someone rehasing old claims because the timing is expedient.

You know what's wierd? I woke up suddenly this morning in a cold sweat with an irrisistable urge to make some cookies and ship them to Canada.

Wierd huh?

Well - there have been countries&leaders where this didn't work either *lol*

you missed the point and total overflew the accusation a few hundred miles back katie. go ahead tho...i'm sure the authorities would thank you..

..for wasting their time. you could be a nice addition to an alarmist list, tho.