While listening to NPR today, I heard yet again George W. Bush tell people about how he is the correct person to be fighting the war on terror. How he is the right person to be taking care of the war in Iraq. How he is the right person to be fighting the war in Afghanistan. How if he isn't elected, the country could be seen as weak and that an attack might come again if Kerry is elected (OK, this last part he didn't exactly say, but it has been implied in his campaign on more than on instance).

Here's a funny thought...

September 11, 2001. Who was running the country? George W. Bush.
When did we get attacked by terrorists? September 11, 2001.
Let me ask again; who was running the country? George W. Bush...

Why are the Republicans out there forgetting this? The largest foreign terrorist attack carried out against US interests and people was during the reign of George W. Bush.

Now, if I were a terrorist, I'd say, hell yeah, keep this ******* in office, we got to them once while he was there, we'll get to him again. Also, in this so-called war on terror, our current administation keeps pissing off Islamic fundamentalists by oh, invading Iraq for no apparent reason. Oh yeah, Saddam is a bad guy, and am I glad that he's not in power, sure, but he was a controllable *******. Iraq had to be one of the most watched countries in the world. Anytime they would put a plane so much as into the air, we'd shoot it down. Throw a few Tomahawk missiles into the country every once in awhile to show them who was really in control. Iraw was no threat to our national security, none at all. But now since we have invaded them, terrorist attacks against the US and our interests have risen constantly over the last 3 years, we're losing more men and women in Iraq, and we're killing off Iraqi civilians in the thousands (last rough count I saw was 10,000-15,000 Iraq civilians killed). So yeah, the current administration are making the Islamists more and more angry, and this current administration has probably become its best recruting tool ever. What more proof do they need of the so-called "evil imperialistic United States" than a President who just invades countries willy-nilly (OK, Afghanistan deserved what they got, but as mentioned before, Iraq, we didn't need to go there). Hell, if I were the terrorists, I'd hope and pray to Allah that Bush got re-elected.

Osama? Still on the loose. That's great. The terrorist network mastermind is still running around out there.

American soldiers? Still dying in Iraq on an almost daily basis.

And this whole thing about Kerry not being fit to command. Let me ask these questions...

Who actually has combat experience in Vietnam and the medals to back it up? John Kerry.

Who missed out going to Vietnam because his family got him a free ride with the Air National Guard? George W. Bush. And just because I know Republicans will bring this up, yeah, Clinton did the same thing.

I'd say Kerry would be a much better commander in chief, just because he has some combat experience and knows what it's like to be under fire. Bush has never seen bullets whizzing past his head, so how COULD he understand the basic soldier's fears during combat? He can't. Neither can Cheney, and neither can Rumsfeld.

It cracks me up when people talk about how good Bush is for National Security, and that they forget about this bit about him being in office when the US was attacked. Head, sand, buried... Time to pull it out people. Time to pull it out.

Rant off....

I was thinking the same thing. How can you Bush tell us with a straight face that he is the be all-end all protector of the USA when the worst attacks happened while he was in charge? How can he keep that straight face when Clinton briefed him on Osama Bin Laden and he did nothing and the worst attack happened on his watch?

Either Bush is lying or he has no memory. Neither one is a good thing.

It would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious.

I guess that is an arguable point, insofar as everything is arguable to people who never admit that they are wrong.

But even if you let the babies have their bottles, even if everything is Clinton's fault, <i>it is clear that Bush is powerless to improve things</i>. Four years have gone by and all we hear are excuses. Terrorism? Festered under feckless, dog-wagging Clinton. The economy, set up for a fall by Clinton's irrational exuberance. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Some leader this Bush is, being that he is still struggling to find his way out of Clinton's shadow <i>four gawd-damnyears later</i>!

is that 'when' the next attack in the US occurs, because of our Presidents so called "war on terror" we will no longer have the world's sympathy or support.

is that 'when' the next attack in the US occurs, because of our Presidents so called "war on terror" we will no longer have the world's sympathy or support.

So true, so true. We got it once, and now I have a feeling that if we should get attacked again, a lot of our world neighbors won't be so understanding and or sympathetic towards our plight. Simply because of what we did in Iraq. After 9/11, the world was on our side, and everyone, well just about everyone, was behind us. Amazing what the Bush administration did in 3 years to dry up that support. Sure, they say we have a coalition of the willing working with us in Iraq. Britain, and that's about it, with a smattering of troops from other countries. Tony Blair signed his own warrant for non-election after siding with Bush when a large majority of his country's people disagreed with him. The US is becoming more and more isolationists. We got it alone, because nobody else will go with us, for good reason...