The Number One Reason NOT to Vote for Bush

[Dorian Gray]

Bush mentioned this stuff from the previous administration in his RNC speech, and bitched about 'nothing being done':
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen010108.html
The first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies, etc., Bush claimed, could have been stopped if the previous administration would have done something about Osama.

He changed nouns, however, for 9/11, using 'al-Qaida' instead of 'Osama bin Laden', and then moved right into Saddam Hussein.

This is, in the words of Corplinx, intellectually dishonest.

Bush was in charge of security for this nation on 9/11, and from Jan 2001 to right now for that matter. The first order of business after 9/11 should have been to capture Osama bin Laden, the person who ultimately killed 3000 people on US soil. Even THAT got sidetracked by the Taliban. Bush is in charge of security.

He let Osama go.

He hasn't captured him, has virtually stopped looking for him, and in fact has said:

"He's the one who needs to be worried. But I want to assure you the objective is not bin Laden. We'll get bin Laden.

"We want him dead or alive ... but we are not too worried about him.

NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT HIM!?!?!?!?

The man responsible for numerous attacks against Americans and others, who killed 3000 people, and we're NOT WORRIED about him?

Bush is a stupid retarded asshat. The very FACT that Osama has pulled off the most devastating terrorist attack in history, gotten away with it, and THROWN the VICTIM off the trail is the NUMBER ONE recruiting tool for al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. They can see that it's possible to attack the US and get away with it. Not only get away with it, but get the US to FORGET WHO DID IT!!!

"But the world is safer with Saddam out of power" Oh sure, it is. But the world would be safer with Khadafi out of power, or Castro, or any dictator on earth! That's a strawman, or a red herring, I can't decide which. It's COMPLETELY beside the point - that being that the man responsible for successfully attacking the United States with impunity multiple times is STILL FREE!

You want to blame Clinton? Go right ahead - but you are STILL a douche bag. Bush has been in office for 3 years and 8 months, 3 years of which had 9/11 etched into all our minds. That's PLENTY of time to have "done something" about Osama bin Laden. How DARE Bush bitch about Clinton, when at this point Bush's situation is EXPONENTIALLY worse!

Bush has let Osama go free and forgotten about him. He's still out there, and still a center and a rallying point for terrorists. Schmaddam Hussein - He wasn't even a real threat because he HAD NO WMDs. A two year diversion, and all the while the real killer goes free - Osama is probably recruiting and planning like crazy, with a successful track record like he has.

Bush also spent a huge amount of time on Kerry and flip-flopping. It takes El Grande Big Ballskies to do that just three days after DOING THE SAME THING HIMSELF!

His government's "primary task," Bush said, is to "prevent another attack ... the best way to secure the homeland of the United States is to find the enemy where he hides and bring him to justice.

THREE F*CKING YEARS, and Bush still hasn't performed his primary task. Osama hasn't been brought to justice. Bush has failed and is still failing in the matter of the security of the United States.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that right there is reason enough not to vote for George Bush in November. Think about it when you go to pull the lever, or push the button, or cast the broken and decoratively enameled goat foot bones onto the dirt floor, or whatever the hell you do to vote in your state.

Thank you very much



BTW, the above uncited quotes are from: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=22012002-034743-1472r

Dated 1/22/2002, this article also contains this quote:

Backed by a former U.S. attorney general, the motion alleges that the prisoners are being held in violation both of the Geneva Convention and American law.

Stephen Yagman, the civil rights lawyer bringing the action, said the case would force the Bush administration to clarify the men's status.

The legal action follows mounting international alarm at the detainees' treatment caused by a number of photos published in various newspapers on Sunday. The photos showed the prisoners kneeling, wearing handcuffs and leg-irons with their eyes covered by blacked-out goggles.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has denied allegations that prison officials at the U.S. base were treating the prisoners inhumanely. "They are treated humanely and in accordance with international conventions. No detainee has been harmed. No detainee has been mistreated in any way," he said.

Guess what, Mr. Rumsfeld? You were and are a lying weasel.

 

[American]

I will carefully read your entire post before responding, because I caaaaaaaare.

 

[corplinx]

This is, in the words of Corplinx, intellectually dishonest.

Bush was in charge of security for this nation on 9/11, and from Jan 2001 to right now for that matter. The first order of business after 9/11 should have been to capture Osama bin Laden, the person who ultimately killed 3000 people on US soil. Even THAT got sidetracked by the Taliban. Bush is in charge of security.

He let Osama go.

He hasn't captured him, has virtually stopped looking for him, and in fact has said: NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT HIM!?!?!?!?

The man responsible for numerous attacks against Americans and others, who killed 3000 people, and we're NOT WORRIED about him?

He let Osama go? I assume when you invoked "intellectually dishonest" you were referring to what you then proceeded to write.

The problem comes from the fact that once Bin Laden and his loyalists escaped to uncivilized western Pakistan, they were untouchable. Pakistan's current military dictator can't afford an uprising by letting US Forces go into Pakistan's borders even if its in the uncontrolled regions that are Pakistan in name only.

If you notice, the Pakistani forces have made considerable headway into that region. Its up to them now to flush our Bin Laden.

As painful as it is to watch, we can only stand by at this point while they search that region for the arab in the haystack (if he is still alive that is).

We have the guy who masterminded 911. We captured and killed a great number of the leadership. And the spiritual leader is in hiding somewhere where he is isolated from the network. So, I will have to agree with Bush. We shouldn't be worried about Bin Laden.

Are you?

 

[Tex]

Or maybe he's got bin Laden stashed away, to be used for an October Surprise. But that would mean that he allowed Osama's apparent freedom to be used as a recruiting tool all this time, which is still a good reason not to vote for him.

 

[Zep]

Re OP: Yep. The USA deserves much better than that. Truly.

 

[Patrick]

A typical Duncian Gray Matter speech - all splutter and no logic. Not catching Osama after 3 years would be as imbecilic as the american people voting Roosevelt out of office in 1944 because "he hadn't caught Hiter in three years". Although he has to be caught eventually, the real issue is the fight against the IF forces, just as the real fight in 1944 was against the Axis forces. In regard to the REAL fight, Bush has done superbly, especially when one considers the Clinton-decimated military Bush had to work with, and debilitated state of the U.S. security and intelligence establishment that is the consequence of decades of democrat PC, bureaucracy, and neglect.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The war on terror is just as stupid as the war on drugs. It's just a political ploy to keep republicans in office so that they can accomplish their real goal of turning the USA into a christian theocracy.

Dorian is correct, Bush hasn't done much to get the person responsible for attacking the WTC's. Instead, he's waged war on Iraq under the guise of terrorism and has duped the american public into forgetting about the person responsible for events of 9/11/2001.

Corplinx may be correct that we can't just barge into Pakistan to get Osama, but if he is, the Bush administration sure as heck isn't saying it. The Bush people have simply stated that they will get Osama and then they have stopped mentioning Osama at all. In other words, they failed to deliver. Also, if the Bush administration really wanted to, they WOULD barge into Pakistan and get Osama. Heck, they barged into Iraq for no good reason.

The Bin Ladens are Bush's buddies and I think this creates a conflict of interest that may be the reason that Osama is still free.

 

[Chickensrevenge]

One good reason not to vote for Bush.

-Look at his and/or the republican agenda.

Personally my reasons.

-Against Gay Marriage. I think this idea is dumb. I mean come on, is it really that important. (If you think it is, I respect your choice which segues into...)

-Anti-Abortion. I think everyone is capable of making their own choice. moving along

-Stem Cell Research Ban. Come on people. England is already doing it, so its gonna happen, all we can do is add our tremendous research capabilities to make it happen faster.

-Oh yeah, and their constant need to bring up religion. 'Nuff said.

There are many other things, but thats enough for me to not vote for the republican party. Thats my choice, and I am voting with it.

I appologize ahead of time for whatever "intellectual dishonesty" I have engaged in, and/or the type of "kool-aid" I like to drink.

(Just kidding Corplinx, you naughty little puppy you.)

edited because I can't believe I forgot religion

 

[Lothian]

I find the whole war on terror (Al Qaida) thing a bit strange.

Iraq were not involved with Al Quida (they hated Saddam). Bush and Blair were told that attacking Iraq however would be seen as an attack on Islam and would swell the support for Islamic terrorists group.

Given that the UN inspectors said that there was no evidence that Iraq was a treat (subsequently confirmed by American inspectors), it seems strange that Bush chooses to link Iraq with terror when in reality the consequence of invading Iraq has raised the likelihood of acts of terror not diminished them.

Although there may be benefits to Iraqis the invasion has made the world a less safe place.

 

[Kodiak]

"The Number One Reason NOT to Vote for Bush?"

"Because I, Dorian Gray, will be really really miffed..."

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm not voting for him because he can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly...and he's a self-righteous Jesus-freak who managed to attack the wrong country either on faulty evidence (gross incompetence) or by blatantly lying to us (deception of the highest order, totally criminal)

IMHO, at this point I view anyone who would vote for Bush as having a serious character flaw. (either you're greedy, cruel or willfully ignorant).

 

[Kodiak]

I'm not voting for him because he can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly...and he's a self-righteous Jesus-freak who managed to attack the wrong country either on faulty evidence (gross incompetence) or by blatantly lying to us (deception of the highest order, totally criminal)

IMHO, at this point I view anyone who would vote for Bush as having a serious character flaw. (either you're greedy, cruel or willfully ignorant).

It looks like we have an elitist possibly coming down off of his "BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!" perch...


Strike up the band!...

 

[HarryKeogh]

It looks like we have an elitist possibly coming down off of his "BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!" perch...


Strike up the band!...

and you'll be voting for Bush because....

 

[Kodiak]

and you'll be voting for Bush because....

...as imperfect as Bush is, the next four years would be worse under Kerry than under Dubya, just like I imagine the previous post-9/11 years would've been much worse if Gore had been president.

 

[HarryKeogh]

...as imperfect as Bush is, the next four years would be worse under Kerry than under Dubya, just like I imagine the previous post-9/11 years would've been much worse if Gore had been president.

I think the only way Gore could have been a worse president than Bush was if he invaded Australia after Afghanistan.

 

[Chaos]

I'm not voting for him because he can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly...and he's a self-righteous Jesus-freak who managed to attack the wrong country either on faulty evidence (gross incompetence) or by blatantly lying to us (deception of the highest order, totally criminal)

IMHO, at this point I view anyone who would vote for Bush as having a serious character flaw. (either you're greedy, cruel or willfully ignorant).

I´ll even go further.

Since Kerry is the only one with the chance to defeat Bush, I view anyone who votes for anybody but Kerry, or who does not vote at all, as acting willingly and knowingly keeping the Bush administration in office - and therefore, as aiding and abetting the crimes against the American people and the Afghani and Iraqi people that this administration has committed.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I´ll even go further.

Since Kerry is the only one with the chance to defeat Bush, I view anyone who votes for anybody but Kerry, or who does not vote at all, as acting willingly and knowingly keeping the Bush administration in office - and therefore, as aiding and abetting the crimes against the American people and the Afghani and Iraqi people that this administration has committed.

now you're talking!!!

 

[Cleon]

as aiding and abetting the crimes against the American people and the Afghani and Iraqi people that this administration has committed.

...and Kerry backed. Don't forget that part, convenient as it is to lambast those who don't agree with the sacred "Anybody But Bush" dogma.

Make no mistake; there are two campaigns out there that actually make issues out of those crimes--Nader and Badnarik. Me? I'm voting for the Arab.

 

[Zep]

I think the only way Gore could have been a worse president than Bush was if he invaded Australia after Afghanistan.

FYI:

a) It would have been WAY easier than Afghanistan;
b) No need to bring the military, just bring spending money and you would have been quite welcome;
c) US interests already own great chunks of Australia;
d) With our lapdog PM, we have effectively become just another state of the USA anyway.

So even if Gore did invade here, he would have still been more successful than Bush.

Meanwhile, back to the fray...

 

[Kodiak]

now you're talking!!!

Thusly does the promising elitist backslide....


Dismiss the band...