:confused: Theres no.....what!:bc:

US 'may delay vote if attacked'

Security is a major issue in the upcoming US elections
The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.
US counter-terrorism officials are examining what steps would be needed to permit a delay, Newsweek reports.

Dear Bush,

Desperate stalling tactics because you're on your way out are retarded.

Love,
Intelligent People

in the case a terrorist attack during elections, i actually think that bush would benefit in the polls. don't think that we have to worry, the bad guys want bush gone as badly as some of you guys.

As many times as the current administration has dropped the ball, he is not in a class with Sadam so leave the clown suit out...

Pick your poison is about correct. Bush did a pretty good job AFTER 911 regarding pure terrorists. The reasons for going to war in Iraq with WMD and all was a round peg sledgehammered into a square hole. Iraq was an operation waiting for an excuse - buildup was going on for tooo long and had been too predominantly on the radar even before that Sept (my opinion but I'm not alone on that). But still, Sadamm is better off gone. And hopefully the Iraqi people will be better off with him gone (there are a lot of pro-post war details that conveniently get underreported). I would have favored the war under some of the other issues of the day, the potential of WMD sure, but that he was evil and that peace in the middle east / national security would benefit in a long term view - 30 years.

Where I think the administration REALLY screwed the pooch was in the way they've handled a lot of the strategic decisions starting the days just after the war. It seems that the Iraqis didn't fall into the plan (as little as it was) for the after war. Some of these people in these high positions are not being realistic enough or are doing the corporate - things will turn our way if we BS hard enough.We kept hearing about the next "Marshall Plan" but that plan seemed to be a heeluva lot more realistic.


All taht said, Michael Moore IS and will always be, the consumate assholio

The world loves to point fingers at those who actually “do” something. Even in the work environment. If you sit and smile and nod, you’ll go farther than those who take chances and possibly fail.
I’m 35 and I grew up watching the Iran hostages paraded on TV and I believe Carter did nothing. I would have leveled a town in Iran every day until the hostages are released. He did nothing and received no criticism for it. History forgives him. Clinton, had the opportunity to get Bin Laden, he did nothing.
Bush acted, he tried the route of the UN, a resolution was passed, when it came down to it, the UN, did nothing. We did not randomly invade Iraq, we went though the diplomatic channels and they failed. The president is bound by the Constitution to act upon any threat to the US. It was not just Bush’s administration that identified Iraq as a threat, it was Clinton’s as well. But Clinton, did…nothing.
The media loves to point fingers at those who act. Post 9/11, the US needs to act, not react. Bush is in a damned if you do damned if you don’t position. Its too late to act after citizens die. We live in a dangerous world that requires action.
Kerry is the exact opposite of action, he is re-action and indecision. There is no time for that in this world.
Moore has very right to make that film, citizens have every right to do their own research and make their own decisons on the proper direction for this country.

all I can say
 

it makes you wonder

"Clinton, had the opportunity to get Bin Laden, he did nothing.
Bush acted, he tried the route of the UN, a resolution was passed, when it came down to it, the UN, did nothing. We did not randomly invade Iraq, we went though the diplomatic channels and they failed. The president is bound by the Constitution to act upon any threat to the US. It was not just Bush’s administration that identified Iraq as a threat, it was Clinton’s as well. But Clinton, did…nothing"

I love this line of thinking - that Bush is the big protector of America, and that he's the only one that can provide adequate protection. Puh-lease. The only difference between Bush and Clinton regarding terrorism is 9/11. Before 9/11, we knew where the terrorists were, identified them as a threat, and could do little more than watch them because the political doctrine of the time didn't allow us to go kill terrorists in a foreign land. After 9/11, the policy changed to open season on terrorists. If you can find 'em , you can shoot 'em or at the very least you can lock them up and toture them. That is the ONLY difference. It's not the man - it's the policy.

Now, the 180 billion dollar "war" that accomplished nothing is a whole differe.t animal.

It's not the man - it's the policy

Uhhh, who makes the policy?

Terrorists.

http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.swf

hear it out:D

It doesn't really matter.

the public doesn't remember shiite aftera few weeks and Georgie's gang knows that.

I support Kerry but at this stage he isn't going to oust George.

what about the children:crying: