digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers

huffingtonpost.com — President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically today, when he compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers during his trip to Israel.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • RuelJ, on 05/15/2008, -24/+61Going negative... what's new with politics...?
    • jemka, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10I'm surprised anyone even keeps tabs on what Bush is or isn't doing anymore. The only thing he can do right now that SHOULD make any headline news is kill a bunch of people or fix everything he broke. Considering those are equally unlikely; Bush who?
      • drape, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0We gotta be careful with the slithery Bush. He should not be forgotten but remembered as one of the least of American presidents who blantantly lied with empty promises to his people for popularity, spied/jailed/tortured Americans without due process, waged a war that his father did not complete, waged another war that has killed far more lives and likely even more than the cause of the war, mishandled a major disaster in his country and in the process destroyed any country's economy that was in his administrative charge and YET still denies its going into a recession.
        I see him as the the first president to use the presidential VETO powers to protect his pride. And also the closest i see to attempt a dictorship.
        His and administrations affiliation to their oil company coupled with the high crude oil-price also coupled with the attempt to horde oil in a rock cavern that will increase crude oil demand is too much of a coincidence.
    • HughesAP, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9Everyone compares everyone to Hitler or the Nazis. It is ridiculous on both sides
      • Loonacy, on 05/15/2008, -0/+17Stop being such a Nazi-Nazi.
      • musicbear, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1When you've reached the level of using hitler and nazis to make a point or comparison, you're done as a public figure of any consequence. Another epic fail in his greatest hits collection of epic fails.
    • delrin500, on 05/15/2008, -3/+12What an *****! I love that fact that Biden came out and called his comments "*****" and clarified that Condi and Gates are both trying to sit down and talk to the Iranians also.
      • juanchopancho, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Add North Korea to the list.
      • Dewhead, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3Hardly *ullsit. This is from an NYT interview with Obama.

        Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

        “We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

    • chanop, on 05/15/2008, -4/+41Bush's grandfather, Preston Bush, was one of the REAL Nazi Appeasers
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ...
      • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+20Prescott. But you're right. Hitler could never have done what he did without Bush family support.

        This war-profiteer thing? Runs in the family.
      • sponeil, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6From what I've read, it sounds like most most wealthy conservatives were sympathizers back in the WWII time frame. If we'd had a Republican President and Congress during that time, we may have ended up fighting on the wrong side.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2The fact that Smedley Butler spoke out against these wealthy businessmens plans speaks contrary to your backwards sentiment. Cut the left right crap. A crook is a crook. And the wealthy consider themselves internationalists, not republicans, democrats or otherwise. In fact, the Republicans used to be the GOOD guys. But let's not ruin the fun of bashing with historical fact.

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
    • NJank, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8great tactic, now the entire election process has to come to a halt thanks to Godwin.
    • sodade, on 05/15/2008, -2/+20UPDATE: John McCain isn't listening to Dean. He has agreed with President Bush's statements, and even thrown in a reference to Neville Chamberlain:
      "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''

      OMFG! How did we allow these nutters to rewrite history? Trading arms for hostages isn't the most disgusting form of appeasement possible? Why isn't McCane being crucified for this blatant whitewashing?
    • cliffzdude, on 05/15/2008, -12/+3Read the actual quotes, Bush never mentioned Obama, and has actually been quoted to say he was speaking about many whom would meet with certain "terrorist" nations. I detest Bush like the next guy -> GOOD RIDDANCE. But get your respective heads our of your fracking asses. Don't you know you're being played like a cheap fiddle? This is as much a hit on Obama as the kit playing T-Ball who tries to lean into a pitch to get walked. But ANY politician is happy to step up and play the sympathetic fiddle.

    • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -10/+6Bush isn't running a campaign on "new politics". Obama is. Unfortunately, Obama's "new politics" looks suspiciously like "old politics".
      • sodade, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Unfortunately, I'll have to agree:
        "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
        Calling Israel our "stalwart" ally and using the word "terrorists" to refer to the other side. Face it though - if he were really going to change the criminal foreign policy we've had for the last 60 years, he'd get whacked faster than you can say come for a ride in my convertible.
    • Dewhead, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3Well, Bush didn't refer to Obama by name. I guess Obama see himself in the comments.
    • damonic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Who cares what Bush says about Obama - I have always compared Bush to Hitler.
      • TypeEE, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1At this time, people automatically treat words from bush's mouth as bull *****.
    • IdevInull, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Pot calling the kettle black...oh, um...I mean...never mind.
    • sjl127, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Obama is a nazi appeaser. Tell me something I don't already know.
      • ordig, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Okay. Despite how it may appear, the earth actually revolves around the sun.
        • IdevInull, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2You idiot. Anyone with eyes can see the sun revolves around the earth.
      • TypeEE, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Tell me something I don't already know? You are wrong?
    • bakednutz, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2WOW, I thought the people of digg were smarter than this, Bush NEVER said Obama's name ONE time. How stupid can one be to ASSUME that he was talking about Obama. ASSUMING things is what got us into Iraq, dont be STUPID!
      • mnocket, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I know, but why does Obama assume it was he that Bush was talking about. Does Obama see himself in Bush's comments?
  • neognostic, on 05/15/2008, -57/+538Then Bush's invasion of Iraq is comparable to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Try Bush as a war criminal and we will all be happy.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -12/+201For the record, I'm Polish and not a Nazi.

      The big difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was actually a well-spoken, charismatic leader, capable of convincing a small nation that they can be a world power. Bush, on the other hand, has ruined a nation that was the world power, and has the lowest approval rating of any president. What does that make him?
      • ghank, on 05/15/2008, -2/+78a douche-wad?
      • wc3452, on 05/15/2008, -14/+7Uh, the anti-hitler?
        • Totalchaos02, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15One of the few positive things we can say about Bush is that he hasn't killed all the Jews. So you may be onto something.
        • chrishiggins, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Neither did Hitler. But don't go giving Bush any ideas. After the Arab world gets turned into a glass parking lot, Israel may be next.
          *prays that none of this shall ever happen*
      • vonfook, on 05/15/2008, -16/+24While I'm all for trashing Bush, let's all stop the Hitler comparisons unless it's really called for. Bush has provided enough reason to be criminally tried and hung, so let's leave it at that.
        • Nougat, on 05/15/2008, -2/+23He started it.
        • econdr, on 05/15/2008, -1/+17ya he totally did. bush is a coward whose grandfather prescott had ties to nazi germany. lets not forget that.

          i agree. bush and his criminal accomplices should be tried in the hague like milosevic or even worse by the iraqi people...
        • cbd37, on 05/15/2008, -2/+21Ya. Bush is only responsible for the deaths of 1,500,000+/- people. Hitler killed 6,000,000+/-. Obviously Bush is 1/4 as evil as Hitler.
        • vonfook, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2Saying "he started it" is childish and doesn't make it right. Recognize one atrocity from another. You debase your argument if you pull in irrelevant comparisons.
        • geoboy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Oh please. I hate Bush as much as anyone on digg, but unlike Hitler, Bush hasn't created any industrialized death camps to send ethnic groups to. Yes, people have died because of Bush's poor choice of unnecessary preemptive war that won't end, but it's not even close to what Hitler did.
        • frozenelf, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I guess geoboy isn't too familiar with Guantanamo Bay or Bagram.
        • Troika37, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, frozen. Bush has systematically eradicated 6 million+ Muslims in death camps. He hasn't held a much smaller handful in a prison wherein horrible things have happened.

          You cheapen the suffering of those at places like Buchenwald by comparing them to Guantanemo Bay.
      • Ricemanstm, on 05/15/2008, -22/+7More popular than the Democrat held Congress genius.
        • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8You say that as if 100% of Congress is Democrat now. Just how large a margin do the Democrats have again?

          When the Republicans drag their feet, NOTHING gets done. They not only SHARE that rating, but they're CAUSING much of it, genius.
        • nirav72, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Exactly - When they do a rating poll on the congress...its ALL of congress. Not just the democrat part of congress. Therefore, the low rating applies to both parties. Idiot.
        • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3It's almost unheard of historically for Congress to have a higher rating than the President. Bush is dragging everybody down with him.
        • Calcularius, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3The reason I am pissed at the Democrats in congress is because they haven't pushed impeachment.
      • citizen782, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Just Dubya.
      • jabberwolf, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3For the record, Polish killed more Jews, gypsies, and others than the Germans did.

        So not the best sources for an opinion about Hilter - since the Polish seemed more eager to please Hilter's wishes more than anyone else.
        • Thuktun, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Cite?
        • unebaguettesvp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1yeah, i would also like a reference to this.
        • GlassAgate, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2This was brought up in the comments of a different Dugg story:

          "The Woman Who Saved 2,500 Jewish Children From the Nazis"
          http://digg.com/world_news/The_Woman_Who_Saved_2_5 ...

          Use the "Find in the Page" function to find a post started by a user
          named "jacekpoplawski". Contained within the post are some citations.
          Make sure to read all of the replies.

          From what little I have already read, the situation is nowhere as bad
          as jabberwolf makes it sound. Jabberwolf, I'd recommend that the
          next time you want to post something that could be controversial,
          that you had better include citations. Otherwise, your comment(s)
          may become buried.
      • Calcularius, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6In other words: Bush is WORSE than Hitler.
        • razalas, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Or maybe we're lucky that he isn't charismatic and is a terrible speaker.
      • Avaseal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0...*****-SALAD?
      • Kautylia, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Hitler was also elected by a majority. Bush can't say the same.
      • DestroyFascism, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What does that make him?
        An ***** dude!
    • drmobutu, on 05/15/2008, -14/+6With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that it was George H.W. Bush's treatment of Iraq, the first time, that was comparable to appeasement...Dubya was just trying to fix the mistake his old man made...
      • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6While simultaneously failing to understand why hid dad made the decisions he did... He had no interest in a foreign occupation, and he had accomplished the set goal of stopping the invasion of Kuwait. Not to mention, the Iraqi army had been decimated, thus demonstrating that the US could easily take over if it so chose.
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/15/2008, -14/+8Bush is the world's greatest terrorist!
      The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists!
    • PDF84, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3I wont be happy......til all those savages are dead!!
      • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3And you're going to enlist to help with the mission, right?
    • thatspsychotic, on 05/15/2008, -11/+13George W. Bush does not make me proud to be an American. We all need someone who can help us feel proud again, and I believe that senator Barak Obama is the man for the job.
      • techprophet, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2Oh, right. Obama, whose wife said she had "never been proud to be an American"? Obama who has lied again and again about his relationship and mentorship from Jeremiah Wright? Who blames racism for the reason that Hillary is catching up? While racism is surely a part of it, it is more because of his lying and lack of plans for what he will do as president that is the reason. I don't care if the candidate is black, white, yellow, red, male, female, or otherwise as long as they support what I believe in.
        • kolobcreek, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Actually if Obama lied about his relationship with Rev Wright its probably because he is an opportunist and was more interested in using him and everything else at his disposal to gain political power. Be honest, politicians seek power. Most of what they do who they talk to and the associations they keep are such.
      • kolobcreek, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2First thing you don't understand is Bush nor the next president can declare war. "The Congress" does. And as long as it was 1/2 Democrat they should bear half the responsibility. And if you say Bush lied presented faulty evidence well that just means their dumb for believing him. I mean seriously they didn't like the guy I bet they didn't trust him either. When it comes down to it you're just allowing others to deny their responsibility.
        • dyoungdigger, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1What an excellent point! I doubt half the people here on digg even think of that. The president has no power, really... everything he tries to do must be approved by both the house and the senate. So... I mean seriously... he only bears 1/3 of the responsibility. If people want to cast blame, blame all of the politicians. Seniors on both sides of the isle had access to the same information that GW did. So it's not like they can look around aimlessly and say 'oh... we didn't know!'
    • jabberwolf, on 05/15/2008, -11/+7Actually the invasion was pretty much as legal as the declaration of surrender made it in 1991.
      But then most idiots like you don't realize we were in IRAQ before, and then left because of comspiracy theories that we secretly WANTED Iraq to invade Kuwait.
      The REAL monsters of WW2 were the appeasers that thought it was ok to make deals with devils, all while they murder people in their backyards and put on a happy international smile.
      If you want the truth, ask an older American Vietnamese, and they will tell you that the USA should not have left.
      Because doing nothing, only allows more people to be killed. If we leave now, we WILL be back again - just like we said before in 1991.
      • indypunx, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2We will be back in Iraq just like we have been back to Vietnam?
    • techprophet, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2Who is more of a war criminal: Bush or the Terrorists? Bush who attacked the terrorists to save both us and from Iraq from them, or the Terrorists like Hamas, the PLO, Fatah, and all the others who consistently kill innocents on purpose?
      • Gutterpunk, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4"Who is more of a war criminal"? I'd take a hard look at myself for believing what you just said. Bush didn't attack "the Terrorists", he attacked a whole nation. Being enough of a hard liner to think that attacking a nation is the same as attacking the Terrorists makes about as much sense than strapping yourself with a bomb and blowing everything American because all of them are The Great Devil.
    • pookkake, on 05/15/2008, -14/+3You are about as original as sodomy in San Francisco.
      Shut the ***** up already! Stupid ***** robot.
      • dyoungdigger, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Wow... what a great reponse. Here's an idea... how about you pose an alternate point of view? No? Can't form a persuasive argument? Then maybe next time don't comment at all.
    • 3leggedHorse, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4 Yeah the same as Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was. That douche should have been finished then.
    • BeyondDGrave, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2If you don't like his policies, I hope you are doing more than just complaining on the internet...so called "preaching to the choir"..
    • JointVenture, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3NO, because we were already at war with IRAQ.

      Remember kids there were NO FLY zones, and we only had a "cessation of hostilities" with Iraq.
      Technically we had been at war with Iraq since they INVADED Kuwait and we then LIBERATED Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia.
      • ammundsen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Technically we have never been at war with Iraq. We haven't been at war with anyone since WWII. That is when the Federal Government decided war was outdated and renamed the war department defense. Ever since then we have simply been defending ourselves, mostly proactively.
    • samnovi, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Bush Admin. and Govt. of Iraq is negotiating with Muqtada Al-Sadr, I believe for the forth time over the last 3 years. Bush is dumb as he looks on TV. I am glad his term is over.
    • itsfullofstars, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Shame on us that this ***** IDIOT got elected not once, but TWO TIMES!!! I don't care that he barely won. What I care about is that there are still people who are our neighbors who TO THIS VERY DAY still like this mans policies and where he has lead our nation. 8 years guys. What a complete waste.
      • TypeEE, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Can't agree more. Who the hell actually voted for him should slap himself/herself 1000 times.
  • cashman57, on 05/15/2008, -29/+174Somebody still listens to Bush?
    • rhabd0mancer, on 05/15/2008, -5/+56The Israelis seem to love him.

      Bush should stay over there and wait for Jesus to return.
      • plimpton777, on 05/15/2008, -13/+5***** Israelis! lol
      • kingofinternet, on 05/15/2008, -1/+26they can have him
      • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -2/+10No, the "zionists" love him.

        And by zionists (wrong term?) I mean the "Israel can do no wrong" group, either in the USA or in Israel.

        Actual Israelis aren't really that extreme (in terms of actual polling)... rather, in the USA we just have some extremist hardliners who *say* they speak for Israel, and say that if you hold certain opinions (even opinions held by large majorities of actual Israelis) then you're anti-semitic.
      • juanchopancho, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3This made my day. Way funny, awesome! Thanks rhabd0mancer
      • glasnostic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2uh oh.. you said the Z word.
        • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3It's in not-so-air-quotes, so I think I'm safe.

          It's when you find people who put it in all-caps that you need to worry.
      • TypeEE, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I think he meant Americans
    • mattowan, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Apparently you do sinec you responded.
    • Jo9100, on 05/15/2008, -2/+7Bush, you stupid fascist motherfuhrer
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I forget he is president sometimes...
    • goomba323, on 05/15/2008, -5/+4THE NEW COMMENT SYSTEM SUCKS!!!!

      anyway we can get the old system back??
      • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5I agree ,a few of the new features are nice (5 minute edit, deleting messages, changing mind on a rating), but this new layout sucks. And losing the ability to down-mod a comment without burying every other reply was kind of handy to have, I miss that a lot.
        • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Tried going back to leave some feedback in the "new digg comment system" post on the front page, and when you click the comment section, it's "PAGE NOT FOUND".

          So I decided to search in ALL stories about the new Digg comment system.

          Every single one of them has comments "NOT FOUND".

          I think they realize their user base is mad.
    • ZeRux, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2I'm not a Bush supported by a long shot, but this time he has a point. You should never negotiate with terrorists and dictators and that's what he said - nothing to do with Obama or any other presidential candidate, the title is just another lame attempt to portray Bush as ranting lunatic (as if there aren't any better arguments you can resort to). Buried as inaccurate.
      • Cyborg326, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1That's what we did in Iraq, look where that got us.
      • weeeezzll, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Negotiations are not always the answer but they should always be an option. That is what separates us from the terrorist and dictators.
    • Myakka, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Just to laugh at the idiot!!!

      IMO, criticism from a fool like Bush is high praise!
    • skyh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4The fact that he is attacking Obama before a nominee has even been chosen just tells me who needs to be the next president... and it's not Hillary or McCain.
  • thejimmyo, on 05/15/2008, -19/+99Godwin's Law?
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=god ...
    • thejimmyo, on 05/15/2008, -3/+24"Godwin's Law states that as an argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument."
      President Bush has invoked Godwin's Law.
      • swrostmore, on 05/15/2008, -2/+17That is an incorrect definition. The original Godwin's law is "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
        • rockefeller2, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Yeah it's not really an example of Godwin's law if the thread starts with Hitler or Nazis as the topic.
        • mCanada, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1Well we're not really on the Usenet so we really can't apply Godwin's law if we really want to be anal retentive?
        • thejimmyo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Does Godwin's Law ONLY apply to Usenet/Internet debates, or can it also work for foreign policy debates? I was under the impression that it was just used generally for those too eager to use Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust as a rhetorical device.
        • DisposableRob, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3It would me more accurate to call this Reductio ad Hitlerum. Ironically, a term coined in 1950 by the father of the neoconservative movement, Leo Strauss.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
        • thejimmyo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"It would me more accurate to call this Reductio ad Hitlerum"
          Lesson learned. Thank you, Internet.
      • Pillage, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Then how do you explain this: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/ ...
    • Hetman, on 05/15/2008, -9/+4And he did not compare them to Nazi's. He compared them to Nazi Appears which could have been from london, france, poland, america etc.
    • ZeRux, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1Yeah, bet that he's going to be impeached for invoking some stupid "law" which most people never heard about.
    • Archos, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Godwins law! Godwins law! *sigh*
  • preneel, on 05/15/2008, -24/+116I think his idea of using false intelligence to invade a country and kill innocent civilians and our soldiers was a much better idea than having diplomatic discussions. What a croc! Why would anyone listen to his opinion on foreign policy?
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15Because he's the elected president!

      Oh, wait, no he's not.
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Millions of Americans still do and many more millions have similar views as Bush does.
      Just take some time and read comments about Iraq and Iran written by US right wingers and you'll see that what Bush said, is pretty mainstream right wing rhetoric.

      Fact is that most Americans have a view not totally unlike what Bush has.
      • juanchopancho, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3This is called Factarding. Proclaming fact when in fact the proclamation is complete rubbish.

        Most Americans do not share the same vision as our President Chucklenuts.
      • Myakka, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4My guess is that all those "supporters" are PAID to spout Bush doctrine!
  • marabout40, on 05/15/2008, -37/+296Bush, SHUT THE HELL UP!
    • ravage86, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Obama is not Hitler.

      Hey look, I'm comparing them now too!
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Well played sir.
      Your argument is bulletproof.
      No really.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0my thoughts exactly...


      Obama/Webb 08
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Shut up and die....

      Oh noes, Thought Crime...
      I am impure! Unclean Unclean!
    • TypeEE, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1What ever Bush said that is negative would actually become positive as people take opposite meaning of what Bush said.
  • duggedup, on 05/15/2008, -30/+234Thank God Bush wasn't President in WW2- we would have lost.
    • DiggasWAttitude, on 05/15/2008, -3/+59He would have invaded Thailand and forgotten all about Japan and Germany. "I no longer care about Hitler. I'm after dictator Pibulsonggram."
      • toolbox, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8False, he can't pronounce Pibulsonggram.
        • DemonWasp, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3He'd just say it "Pit-bull-song-ram", then stand there grinning like an idiot while the press stares in disbelief.
    • ghank, on 05/15/2008, -22/+16Probably gunna get Dugg down for this, but ***** it.

      If Bush had been president during WW2, I bet the US wouldn't have taken 2 years to get involved. War mongers don't sit on their ass when there's killin to do.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/15/2008, -2/+11If he targets the right ones, WOOT! We win faster!
        If he targets anyone else: WE CAN'T BACKOUT OR THEY WIN!

        That seems like a risky stratagem.
      • thecheatah, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12A win needs strategy, not brute force. Busch is not good at strategy, so it wouldnt have turned out so good.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Which is why military strategists and not Presidents usually plot and plan what happens in terms of battles.
      • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9It wouldn't have taken 2 years to get involved, but we'd have attacked the wrong targets, for the wrong reason, and lost.

        And he'd still have land in Paraguay.
      • fugazied, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7Unless there was some way for Exon/Blackwater/Haliburton to make money from it he wouldn't have gotten involved.
      • richmomz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Actually it WOULD have taken 2 years to get involved since at the start of WWII freakin PORTUGAL had a bigger army than we did. The military budged kind of got hosed because of that little Great Depression thing they had going on before the war.
        • ghank, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Don't blame the depression, Canada was also suffering from the depression, but that didn't stop us or the rest of the civilized world.

          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
          Canada was hit hard by the Great Depression. Between 1929 and 1933, the gross national product dropped 40% (compared to 37% in the US).

          "Canada declared war on Germany on September 9th of 1939, in response to the fact that Germany had invaded Poland the previous week."

          hmmmm a week after Germany invades Poland and we(Canada) are in, the only thing Depressing is the fact that the USA took 2 years to help out. PLUS, you guys were late getting involved in WW1 as well. Funny how Hollywood makes America out to be the "Great Heroes of the free world".
          FYI: Heroes don't sit on their asses while millions of innocent people are being killed. Maybe if your country hadn't been such a Douche-Wad about WW1 and WW2, you'd have a better reputation in Europe, and the rest of the world.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@ghank

          You're Canadian, so I wouldn't expect you to know this, but in regard to WW I & II, the US was still very much clinging to isolationist philosophy. It's the same philosophy of Ron Paul's platform, which is: if we are not directly threatened, we have no business being involved. In fact until Pearl Harbor, the American public was greatly opposed to entering WW II, and were livid about the lend-lease program between us and England when that came to light.

          Also, America didn't gain the "Heroes of the free world" label until after WW II. That was also the same point in time when the US began taking a proactive approach to international conflict that got us into Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 & 2, and the heavily underrated battle of Grenada.
      • Zephyd, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0Oh no! not dugg down!
    • treehugger87, on 05/15/2008, -8/+25Actually, given that George H. W. Bush's father, Prescott Bush was an American banker and illegal Nazi financier I strongly suspect that had W. been president during WWII we would all be speaking German and that the Jewish (and black, and gay, and...) people would be extinct.
      • jbettineski, on 05/15/2008, -3/+11Exactly.Who's to say we didn't lose? Perhaps the balance of power just jumped overseas. It's pretty apparent that the same tactics used before are being used again now. Who's to say we're not the 4th Reich?
      • Archos, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a New World Order." - Adolf Hitler
        "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a New World Order" - George H.W. Bush

        Watch "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement"... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053 ...
    • Picaroon, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5I doubt it... if there's one thing Bush wouldn't be afraid to do, it's go to war. Your statement really makes no sense at all.
      • ordig, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2If there's one thing Bush wouldn't be afraid to do, its go to war... against the wrong country. If bush were president during ww2, he probably would have invaded Switzerland.
      • Viend, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1He would never hesitate to go to war, but that wasn't his point. His point was that we would've lost, and that's guaranteed, given we can't even get total control over a country with a puppet government.
    • nirav72, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4If he was president during WW2. Hitler would've still ran around the swiss alps as a free man even after the Allied troops occupied Germany.
    • XanderDee, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Actually his grandfather tried to take over the United States and join Hitlers Nazi party.
    • JoeVet, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2The Bushs were big Hitler supporters and not only tried to stage a fascist coup in this country but they continued to do business with the Nazis right up to the point were the United States entered the war. That means Bush's own grandfather was not only a Hitler appeaser but was a Nazi sympathizer.
      • CptAmerica, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Before you slander like that show some facts. There is NO right for you to make such claims. So is that how your party acts? Making outrageous claims? You should be ashamed. To disagree with the president is one thing, to protest is another, but to say things like that just makes you look like even more of an idiot than you already are.
        • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1*sigh* don't make me come in there and pull your head out of your ass for you!
    • Selenica, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2We probably would have been on the Nazis side.
  • abby11, on 05/15/2008, -39/+142BUSH YOU SUCK!SHUT THE ***** UP!
    • plimpton777, on 05/15/2008, -3/+14***** THING SUCKS
      • STPZ, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3What the ***** does that say, " I'm sorr....???"
      • ligyron, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Do I have to see this every time someone uses caps with an accompanied curse word now?
      • Dylson, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2***** IT!
  • livegreenordie, on 05/15/2008, -9/+4http://pameladrew.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/03/69 ...
  • plimpton777, on 05/15/2008, -5/+103Nazis...I hate Nazis.
  • R1b4z01d, on 05/15/2008, -26/+50Give up bush. Just give up at life.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2That black kid from YouTube has that one covered.
    • paulmer2003, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah, he's been quite a failer at life eh? Gone to Yale, president of the United States. Such a fail.
    • LadyOBOF, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Bush...we have had enough of your *****. Lady "O" is causing a Revolution...and when she wins this race...I promise u all can take turns pissing on his face. He's a damn disgrace..put in him his place.
    • Gwennyk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Ah this made me laugh, especially since he really does fail at life! And to Paulmer2003, if Bush had been intelligent, and had not just gone to Yale and gotten the presidency because of his daddy, then he wouldn't be as much of a failiure. He fails at life because he's a ***** president who is taking away your rights everyday and killing thousands in a never ending war for oil. That and his administration are all corrupt, for example while Donald Rumsfield not only obliterates thousands in Iraq, he's ***** up the rest of us with Aspartame, a sweetner that was deemed dangerous and "could cause brain tumours", that was made acceptable because he paid a bunch of people to say it was.

      BUSH FAILS.
  • BabushkaBlue, on 05/15/2008, -24/+105To criticize ANY candidate on foreign soil is awful. Remember when the Dixie Chicks apologized for Bush when on a European tour? The outrage! Will there be outrage at Bush's irresponsible comments from those same people now? (Rhetorical question. Of course not.)
    Bush's sabre rattling while in Israel using the words "WWII", "Nazis" and "Iran" in the same paragraph is alarming and stupid. Will McCain repudiate what Bush said? He should.
    • kosiasko, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12Or is it foreign soil?
      • BabushkaBlue, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Huh? I don't understand your question.
      • treehugger87, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Hah! I get it! Since Israel own us anyway, it's kind of like Bush is going home to the fatherland :)
      • compu73rg33k, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Or do we own them? They can't even sign a peace treaty without our approval. Freedom - lol.
    • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -11/+4The Democrats have been doing that for ages. Mother ***** Ted Kennedy met with the Russians. Jon Kerry met with the VC. Nancy Pelosi met with Syria. Obama's advisors met with Hamas. Get over yourselves.
      • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Right, and how many times did they call Bush, or anyone else for that matter Nazis??

        Oh, yea, they didn't....
        • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Quote me in Bush's speech where he called anyone Nazis.
    • purkel, on 05/15/2008, -1/+13the dixie chicks dont look so wrong in critizing bush in hindsight
      • evilregis, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11It doesn't take hindsight...
      • DemDude, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Hindsight? Pretty much anyone with a bit of a brain knew from day one, the day Bush stole the election, that his presidency can only end in chaos and suffering.

        Still, he went far beyond anyone's expectations. Way to ***** up, Mr. Bush!
    • McHoffa, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9"Will McCain repudiate what Bush said? He should."
      Nope, he agreed with him, the article was updated.
    • dyoungdigger, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2How many times has Clinton or other politicians such as Carter, Gore, Edwards... not to mention the many actors and musicians, criticized the US from overseas? It's easy to look down at the policy of a president when we are looking through rose colored glasses. But we lack the information the president has. I'm not saying he's 100% right on all the issues, but let's be honest. He has access to way more information than we do. Isn't it possible that he may know something we don't? I'll prob. get dugg down and bitched at for suggesting it though.
      • Halbermunken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Bush is intellectually lazy so a lot of his work is done for him by think thanks such as PNAC who had middle-east plans way before 9/11.
        Suggest you start reading their own documents (bypass the useless media) like rebuilding americas defences.

        Also read about Operation Ajax. It should be a bit clearer and what the idea for Iran is.
      • oldgal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I have never seen or heard of a President of the United States of either party publicly attacking another American politician in front of a foreign governing body.
  • mochaman, on 05/15/2008, -17/+30Bushe's FUD is becoming old, with the war and the economy in shambles his bluff carries no weight or an ounce of credibility. However I'm eagerly awaiting for a one two punch from Obama.
    • Olfster, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Yea like a statement that if he is made president all who presided over and allowed for the raping of the USA these past eight years will be brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want to hear that and then I will vote for him in a heartbeat.
      • STPZ, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0McCain elected=more pardons Clinton=spends all time pardoning bill
  • RaspberryTang, on 05/15/2008, -11/+6When Bush is not in the US criticizing American politicians doesn't really seem like good PR. We want to spread freedom to the middle east yet we have our "spokes person" make it seem like the Democrats in America aren't intelligent....
    • bbqsalad, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3America is not intelligent. Bush won twice.
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/15/2008, -23/+65I always thought of Bush as something of a Fuhrer.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -1/+11He wishes. A Fuhrer has leadership qualities and is respected and loved by his followers. Bush is a lying dumbass from Texas, who sailed into office on his daddy's political wings.
      • neognostic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9He is not a native Texan, he is a blue blood Yankee.
    • citizen782, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5"Bush is a lying dumbass from Texas"

      Well said sir.
  • jstohler, on 05/15/2008, -20/+55Good -- the most Bush spews his idiocy, the more people gravitate to the Democratic candidate.
    • awianch, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1you mean the candidates who haven't done anything to stop him except talk tough?
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/15/2008, -14/+24That's pretty ironic.

    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Bush+hitler&me ...
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bush+hitler&m ...
  • therightside, on 05/15/2008, -24/+68Except President Bush never mentioned Obama in reference to what he said.

    "Secret White House aides" LOL good source
    • Marinium, on 05/15/2008, -4/+25EXACTLY! Buried.
    • Skywise, on 05/15/2008, -4/+16Shh.. that's not important. What's important is that we have control of the sheep again...
    • ByteGuerilla, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2"Unnamed White House aides" is often what White House aides tell members of the White House Press Corps they're allowed to refer to them as. However, it is unusual for said aides to provide any information other than what they're trying to leak.
    • Jorin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I bet they wear black cloaks and meet in a hidden chamber beneath the whitehouse. Oh yeah, and they burn all kinds of insense.
    • Dexter77, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2See it yourself: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4861337
  • Halbermunken, on 05/15/2008, -16/+61Speaking of nazis, look for Bush's grandfather's links to nazi germany and how the world dominance plans of PNAC are not extremely different from the nazis...just more concealed.
    • Goodanswer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Dont forget to mention that his name is Prescott Bush. That will help them track down the information.
    • bernandoo, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3i looked.. and all i could find was a tin foil hat with your name on it.
    • Halbermunken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+31934: The Plot Against America
      The Congressional committee kept the names of many of the participants under wraps and no criminal action was ever brought against them. But a few names have leaked out. And one is Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the incumbent president. Prescott Bush was of course deep into the business of the Hamburg-America Lines, and had tight relations throughout this period with the new Government that had come to power in Germany a year earlier under Chancellor Adolph Hitler. It appears that Bush was to have formed a key liaison for the group with the new German government.
      http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-9000065 ...

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ...

      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1018-01.ht ...

      And let us not forget the Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens. PNAC's plan is online, I suggest you read

      You should also read about full spectrum dominance. No need for me to invent anything, just people need to wake up and do a bit of research (which can be long and dull work but there's a lot to be found that the press doesn't really inform people about. They are for instance quiet on PNAC and they were quiet about the downing street memos)

      I'm not really on the side of the democrats either if you want to know, the system is at fault here... a lot money to be tied with the military industrial complex.
    • iAlex, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Also read "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton online here: http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html or here http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_stree ...
      Or buy the book from Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler-Antony-Su ...
      It shows how the elite (Rockefeller, JP Morgan, General Electric (GE), Ford etc funded the Nazis and Adolf Hitler.
      (Rockefeller is closely associated with United Nations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_headqu ... ) , also founded the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) where the elites are members of today and the Trilateral Commission that he co-founded with Zbigniew Brzezinski (who is Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor), Rockefellers and JP Morgan are also closely associated with the Federal Reserve ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#The_F ... )
      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Re ... and now you know that Nazi-collaborators created this horrible organization called the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) who is in charge of USA and that is why we get these horrible pathetic/idiot/meaningsless wars such as the Iraq War, Vietnam etc.
      Quote from the book:
      "Makes Every Previous Book on World War II Obsolete.
      Finally, a distinguished scholar has penetrated the cloak of falsehood, deception, and duplicity that for more than thirty years has protected one of the most incredible secrets of World War II: the support from key Wall Street financiers and other international bankers in subsidizing Hitler's rise to power.

      Professor Antony C. Sutton proves that World War II was not only well planned, it was also extremely profitable—for a select group of financial insiders. Carefully tracing this closely guarded secret through original documents and eyewitness accounts, Sutton documents the roles played by J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and scores of other business elitists.

      Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler shows how the bloodiest, most destructive war in history was financed and promoted. It is sure to spark angry denials and heated debate."

      Also download this book about Skull and Bones http://www.mininova.org/tor/579779

      This is enough to NOT like United Nations, Rockefellers, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve or anyone associated with it. If they can fund the Nazis, then they sure can fund Al Qaeda, or other supposed enemies.


  • buffyangel108, on 05/15/2008, -12/+27That's ridiculous. Bush cannot pronounce 'appease'!
  • oldhick, on 05/15/2008, -18/+53I read the actual speech and didn't see Obama's name mentioned anywhere... Aren't we focusing a bit too much on someone who's name wasn't mentioned as opposed to the actual validity of the argument? I'm more interested in discussing the whole Iran/Syria/Nazi comparison. That comparison seems a bit off to me....
    • BishkekBuddy, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10What you are citing here is an EXCELLENT example of the insidious nature of their attacks. Beware...
    • Nexnecis, on 05/15/2008, -7/+9It was pretty obvious he was referring to Obama's openness to talking to Iran, and Jimmy Carters recent Hamas expedition. CNN also sourced White House Aides that specifically said that section of the speech was in reference to Democrats.
      • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -4/+6Obama is now claiming he's not open to talking to Iran. Which is it? Is Obama going to meet without preconditions like he said in the past and he currently says on his website, or his he not going to do so until they drop their nuclear program like he & Jon Kerry say today?
        • Nexnecis, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Huh? Obama's response with regards to diplomacy today was:
          "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."
          And John Kerry said:
          "No -- Barack Obama believes our government should engage the full range of diplomatic tools with other states in the region - from Syria to Iran to Pakistan - to further our foreign policy interests and fight against terrorism."

          Did I miss something, or are you confusing Iran with his refusal to talk to Hamas ?
        • salinemist, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Tough diplomacy? After Obama guts the military our enemies will laugh at his attempts at diplomacy.
        • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. " from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
          "but we're not going to sit down and engage iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program, " Obama's spokesman today.
          http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_compares_Obama_ ...

          So which is it? Is he going to meet unconditionally with Iran, or is he going to not talk to them until they give up their weapons program? (Which is Bush's policy).
          • Nexnecis, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The transcript is wrong ( I just listened to the youtube video to make 100% sure). The quote is missing a pretty important word. Listen to the video and read the transcript...

            "no, john, let's not confuse precondition with preparation. obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. but IF we're not going to sit down and engage iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program, how are we going to sit down with them to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program?"

            Listen to the video again. Kinda important phrasing is missed in the transcript.
      • CabesMojo, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Nah its not obvious he is referring to anyone. This is the huffington post creating a sensationalist headline and people running with it.

        Honestly its stupidity that just shocks the hell out of me. I notice in the updates that they conveniently leave out the white house's response where they said this freaking morning it wasn't directed at Obama. But hey that would be totally counter to the authors opinion.

        Besides hasn't the Bush administration already attempted diplomacy with Iran? People will jump at anything they read on the internet. Like freaking lemmings.
        • mizlane, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Bush and diplomacy do not belong in the same sentence...
    • oldhick, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3I know he WAS talking about Obama, I'm saying who cares. Everyone is focused on Obama when we should be worried about comparing Iran and Syria to Nazi Germany.
    • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8This makes me think of this old article:

      The President And The Straw Man: 'Some Say', But Bush Won't Say Who When Arguing Policy Points
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/18/politics ...

      Never mind that most *ISRAELIS* support direct talks with Hamas. Because obviously most of Israel's citizens are clearly are weak-kneed appeasing anti-semites, right?
      • rdoger6424, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Since when did Israel care for the good of Israel? I think we should go with Bush on this one.
        • Terr01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What that really shows it that you are an American who does not care for the good of America.
        • rdoger6424, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What THAT really shows is that you can't perceive sarcasm.
    • oldhick, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Alright, apparently I'm wrong.. All anyone cares about is that Obama was talked about. My bad.
      • PhoenixAvatar2, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Bush compared Iran to Nazi Germany during his State of the Union address in 2002 when he declared them part of a new "Axis of Evil." Everyone knows that Bush would love to attack Iran, the issue here is the audacity of what he said about Obama.
        • oldhick, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1That's too funny. Apparently you are correct... So Bush starts a war with Iraq, imprisons people without representation indefinitely, spies on Americans, and god knows what else. But he takes a veiled swipe at Obama and thats "audacious". I can't believe I missed that. Sorry.
        • cwgannon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure there's any kind of mutual exclusivity as regards both the audacity of what Bush said about Obama and all the other twisted ***** he has done during his time as President.
  • acroyear2, on 05/15/2008, -23/+40Bush later added, "Putting big words together for diplomatic talk is... hard. I better at bombing stuff. Bam bam."
    • londubh, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4You forgot: "Bush smash!"
    • 533n, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2This is the first comment I actually laughed out loud at in awhile
  • kingofinternet, on 05/15/2008, -39/+9this ***** doesn't know anything about LEADERSHIP, only POLITICS

    BUSH YOU LOOK LIKE THE LAST ***** I TOOK
    • neems25, on 05/15/2008, -10/+7KAPOOWWWWWWW.....BURIED YO BITCH ASS!
      • kingofinternet, on 05/15/2008, -15/+2***** STOP TRYING TO ACT BLACK

        WHITE TRASH ***** EATER
        • neems25, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5im actually far from white trash....im persian, like the cat...mee-yeowwwwww!
          • kingofinternet, on 05/15/2008, -7/+1***** STOP TRYING TO ACT BLACK

            PERSIAN ***** EATER
        • fulibs, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1racist!
        • ByteGuerilla, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1***** whut?
    • Dylson, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3***** THING SUCKS!
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -33/+57Republican Foreign Policy = Pound on your chest and call entire nations "evil". Refuse to sit fown and discuss our problems with people we don't like. Kill anyone who disagrees. War profits are good for our economy.

    Democratic Foreign Policy = Open dialogue with everyone (including our enemies). Build true coalitions and work WITH the world to try to find peaceful solutions to our problems BEFORE they escalate into war. If this aproach fails, you can always bomb people later, but at least TRY to resolve things peacefully first. War profiteering should be illegal.

    Libertarian Foreign Policy = Bury your head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world. Their problems will never have any impact on us here at home (right?).
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/15/2008, -11/+18Because true coalitions like the UN have done such a great job.
      • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8In many ways, yes, they have. The UN is actually a very successful vehicle for accomplishing US national interests. But when the US government actively seeks to weaken the UN and delegitimize it through unilatural action, we're destroying one of our best tools for *effective* promotion of our own national needs.

        Remember, the UN was in Iraq, and they had inspectors on the ground and in Saddams palaces. Inspectors who didn't find anything and were begging us to give them the information about where ("North, south, east, and west of Baghdad and Tikrit somewhat") to look for weapons. And then Bush decided to invade and (even in his own speech) told them to bug out because the bombs were coming.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5The U.N. is by no means perfect, but it's the ONLY forum where all countries can meet peacefully to try and resolve problems and find peaceful solutions. It serves a valuable purpose. We should at least TALK to each other if we ever expect to resolve our differences.
      • CabesMojo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1The U.N. is a waste of time, money, and effort. Its a bundle of dreams held outside reality smeared with *****. We just end up footing a lot of the bill, and being slandered.
      • dyoungdigger, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because having the world's largest civil liberties violator (China) as a permanent member really pounds home world unity and progress.... Let's go make the world a cleaner better place... except don't pay attention to China... they're a "developing" country, so the millions of citizens they kill and drive from their homes don't really count. Oh, and lets have nicey nice talks with North Korea while they make nuclear weapons... And lets not forget negotiation with organizations who strap bombs to 12 year old children and women... because Lord knows that's the definition of a world body I want to be a part of.
    • ssn697, on 05/15/2008, -3/+38"Republican Foreign Policy = Pound on your chest and call entire nations "evil"

      I'd give that more of a "Bush's foreign policy". Reagan sat down with Russia. Nixon sat down with China. It has been Bush who refuses to talk.
      • neognostic, on 05/15/2008, -3/+14You are correct, Neocon Foreign Policy = Pound on your chest and call entire nations "evil"
        • ssn697, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Stick with your labels, simpleton. You just can't converse like a grown man, can you.

          It is BUSH's foreign policy. Using some generic "neo-cons" shows your childishness. Grow up, and answer to the issues specifically, or go away.
        • neognostic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yes it is so mature and manly to call someone a simpleton and childish. Oh, and here is a definition of neoconservativism, try not to move your lips when reading it. Bush is a neocon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
      • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4It depends on whether you see "Republican" or "Conservative" as a fixed set of ideals and behaviors, forever frozen in time, beyond man's power to alter...

        .. Or whether you use it to refer to a political movement and a group of people.

        In the latter sense, Bush's foreign policy certainly *is* the Republican foreign policy because it's extremely strongly supported by Republicans.
      • Lugano, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Not to mention Bush Sr. sitting down with Russia and convincing them to bring down the Berlin wall.
        • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3What the *****?
          Did you pull that ***** out of your ass? Because it has no resemblance with reality. I spent my birthday in Berlin, chipping away at the wall and I can assure you that USA had nothing to do with the fall of the wall, but I guess US propaganda indoctrinates the kids with lies as usual.
          • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2The USA had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall? LOL. Are you really that stupid?
          • Lugano, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Actually the Russians had no intention of allowing Germany to become one nation again. A lot of things happened behind the scene. Just because Bush didn't go to the wall doesn't mean that US foreign policy didn't have a strong influence on the Soviets.
          • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It is so obvious to me that none of you and esp poser has no clue what happened behind the iron curtain. Many claim Reagan had a finger in it, but it is also wrong, he slept for the most part.

            The fall of the iron curtain was a complex story, where Americans played literally no role at all. There is too much to talk about and this place is not very well suited for such a discussion, but if you want to see the real reasons why the curtain fell, you need to start in Gdansk, Poland in the late 70's.

        • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1LOL. Bush Sr. being instrumental in bringing down the Berlin wall?!?!? Did you learn that in school?

          You might want to go read up on the Berlin Wall coming down. I see I am not the first to point out the fallacy of the statement.

          I'll give you American foreign policy (under Reagan though) played a PART, but really, your statement about Bush sr. is not justifiable.
    • saigumi, on 05/15/2008, -7/+18Actually, that is wrong:

      Democratic Foreign Policy - Bring troops home, ditch UN Food Relief forces because your approval rating may slide. Cover ears and eyes to ignore genocide. Turn head other way to ignore horrendous attrocities on civilian populations. Pound table, stick thumb out and call Republicans "Warmongers". Call secretary pool to arrange afternoon hummer. Call it a day.
    • jaej, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Libertarian Foreign Policy: Defend yourself.
    • thankyousir, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4LEAVE LIBERTARIANISM ALONE!!! *wipes eyes*
    • Jarodd, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2I fail to see how war is good for US economy...
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1It was good for me. Sure made it easy to find some easy investment winners on the stock market ;-)
    • TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3 I hate when I bury people in this new system, I have to reopen the thread...
      • krd1979, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I guess we're supposed to comment first, then bury.
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1And watch it refresh multiple times, depending on the thread length. I just changed my setting to show all, and raised the threshold.
  • DangerCollie, on 05/15/2008, -10/+31I listened to a McBush campaign speech this am...this is what you would have heard;
    The war in Iraq has been won, Iraq is a stable democracy, the economy is recovering, Al Quida has been defeated and is on the run, job training programs are working to get people back to work, the southern border is now secure, illegal immigration is under control...I'm actually quoting these talking points...schools are better because of the competition from charter and private schools.
    Even applause from a veterans group were anemic. If this is a glimpse of his campaign strategy, then he's completely lost it. Between that and the Bush Nazi comments in Israel, it's like the Republicans have experienced a total strategic meltdown. Perhaps the intelligent people have abandoned the party and left the delusional at the wheel as the bus goes over the cliff.
    • jstohler, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5And if you heard McCain's speech this morning, you would have heard that the economy is doing great.
    • Olfster, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4They, republican representatives, are all running for cover AKA "Farm Bill" after the Mississippi outcome on tuesday. A melt down is an understatement.
  • Dumbledorito, on 05/15/2008, -9/+29Firstly, Bush seems to equate talking with people he dislikes as "negotiation," which shows how childish his views are. Actual adults don't end communication if they actually want to solve a problem.

    Secondly, the quote they use about "talking to Hitler" and calling it appeasement is a gross distortion of history. Talking with someone, even Hitler, isn't even remotley the same as giving up territory in the hopes that an aggressive nation won't invade other lands.
    • jmorrissette, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0This principle is true to an extent. However, demonstrated intention should also be taken into consideration with countries like Iran. They use words to delay and stall while advancing the opposite. They say one thing but do another thing. So lets not be naive about their ultimate goals.
    • InfidelAl, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2"Talking with someone, even Hitler, isn't even remotley the same as giving up territory in the hopes that an aggressive nation won't invade other lands."

      Are you referring to Israel giving land up, or the Munich Agreement?
  • dinot, on 05/15/2008, -4/+22Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
    Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.
  • tonygumbrell, on 05/15/2008, -22/+2The Nazi appeasers are the Democrats who gave Bush the go ahead, and who continue to give him the funding for the war in Iraq. The trouble with Iran stems directly from the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson Iran has learned is: If we don't have weapons of mass destruction we are vulnerable to attack by the U.S. (the Nazi aggressors); therefore, we had better get some weapons of mass destruction. In the meantime they are surrounded by U.S. forces, and so, aid their allies the Shiites in Iraq. As Pogo famously said; "We have met the enemy, and..."
    • neognostic, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6Let me fix your broken logic. The Democrats do not have a clear 2/3 majority, that is what is required to override a Bush veto, which he threatened to do each time the Democrats tried to cut funding. Blame Bush and the Republicans who would not help the Democrats stop the war. Secondly, the minute that Democrats start to try and block funding, the Republicans start wrapping themselves in the American flag and shout out how Democrats are not patriotic and are traitors to the American soldier.
      • Terr01, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1While I'll admit it's a political minefield, and have crunched my own stats to indicate that Republicans are hypocritically filibuster-happy these days...

        ...The Democrats could simply cut off funding through *inaction*, which is not something that can be filibustered. Never give Bush a bill that doesn't have that provision. When Bush is vetoing three in a row and then complaining that he doesn't have the money he keeps refusing to take without some string attached...
  • drmobutu, on 05/15/2008, -18/+15Dubya comparing his father to the Nazi appeasers would be a more apt comparison...
    • londubh, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Uhm, I think Nazi collaborator would be more accurate.
  • peticsu, on 05/15/2008, -15/+41just imagine if a Democrat were the president and criticized the Republicans on foreign soil...

    the flag-pin gestapo would shout treason...
    • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -5/+9Just imagine if Democrats have gone on the foreign soil of our enemies to directly undermine the Administrations' policies. Go read some papers, Dem's have been doing that forever.
    • londubh, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2luv the flag-pin gestapo. I can use that.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 05/15/2008, -5/+6You mean like they do EVERY FRICKIN TIME they leave the country, stay in the country or whatever. The reason democrats are howling like mad about this? Cuz its true.
  • slabdigger, on 05/15/2008, -20/+29US to Bush: SHUT THE F UP!
    • geoffg, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4Bush to Libtards: SHUT THE F UP!
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Ehh no... Americans loves their dictators even when they are as stupid as Bush, which is why he is in Israel today and not in prison where he should be.
  • jaymzdean, on 05/15/2008, -9/+14Did he write Israel another fat check for $30 billion financed from the pockets of Obama supporters?
  • ParkBeam, on 05/15/2008, -16/+52George W Douche
  • Nexnecis, on 05/15/2008, -13/+53God I love Biden's response http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Biden_ ...

    Biden: “This is *****, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

    How idiotic do you have to be to pull this kind of *****... overseas... in front of the Knesset... on Israels 60th anniversary... and friggin Godwin your speech! This is probably the most stupid partisan ***** that's happened in a long while. And that's saying alot with what we've seen lately.
    • Jorin, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Biden should have screamed "THIS IS SPARTA" to end that off.
  • YourMothersMilk, on 05/15/2008, -13/+108Irony is a bitch:

    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ...
    • Pritchard, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Heh. The Clintons and the Bush Family are really powerful. I think we have a few generations of power in the Bush family, and a good generation + tons of family connections in the Clinton Family. It's scary to think, but sometimes it feels like the former Presidents and long-standing members of Congress have more power than the rest of our government.
    • elcob32, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12Thanks for that, I was going to point out the same, but thought to do a search for Prescott first. Well written, and Dugg for your knowledge of history.
      • YourMothersMilk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1elcob32.

        Hey thanks for the compliment. Though I didn't write this. This is an excerpt from the source provided. I just realized today that the link was broken. I apologize for not seeing it sooner.

        I am glad that more people are becoming aware of the connection between the Bush family and the Nazis.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ...

        The link seems to work now.
    • blackjack75, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6As much as I dislike Bush, I must say both my grandfathers fought the spanish war on the fascist side, and one of them even died thinking it was a good thing they won and all. That doesn't say jack ***** about me or my personal views. I happen to be a different person.

      Even if Bush's grandfather was Hitler himself I could care less. I judge him by his (miserable) actions not by who was his grandfather or cousin.
      • malex, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2You make a good point, but then again, perhaps you are not as tightly intertwined with your family dynasty as the Bushes are. Prescott had an enormous influence over the direction and relationships of the family, not to mention the whole Skull & Bones things.
    • livegreenordie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2 Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks for setting the record straight-I hope Obama does tonight as he is expected to address the issue. This is going to affect the election for sure but not in the way Bush was expecting.
    • bernandoo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1your link is broken...
    • Bkaufman, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I hate Bush, but isn't it a bit unfair to blame him for the sins of his grandfather? He has done enough on his own to make me hate him, I don't need to blame him for the actions of others.
  • aldenhg, on 05/15/2008, -11/+29That just means he's scared that he'll be brought up on charges on January 21st.
  • mattowan, on 05/15/2008, -40/+18Bush is 100% correct.
    • RikkiTikki, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It's tougher to talk to your adversary in the same room than bomb them from 5,000 miles away.
    • Troika37, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Rikki - yes it is. Especially when your adversary is wielding a scimitar and is attempting to sever your head while you're attemting to negotiate.
  • kosiasko, on 05/15/2008, -14/+8So, tell me again, who is Bush appeasing?
    • pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4the neocons and the zionists.
    • Darksoul, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1And don't forget himself he was the one that said "They tried to kill my dad".....
  • woodrow8292, on 05/15/2008, -11/+17What a great title considering he never mentioned a name in his speech. I would lean more towards Jimmy Carter as being the target.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -9/+4Go back to your Tom Clancy novels and hating our troops you Neo-Con scum.
    • Dynamis, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4FTA:
      "in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"

      But why the hell wouldn't the president speak out against people proposing activities that are against the current administrations policies? (this isn't really directed at you woodrow) What exactly was it about what he said that wasn't 100% on the money? More and more people are really treating Obama as some sort of Messiah that should only be praised and never questioned.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -29/+30The only difference between Bush and Hitler is Hitler was elected.

    /Vonnegut
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -2/+7Wow I guess there are not too many Kurt Vonnegut fans.
      • krazikamikaze, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3It's just that comparing Bush to Hitler is as stupid as comparing Obama to Nazi appeasers. I hate Bush just as much as you, but he's no Hitler.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Of course you can't compare Bush to Hitler.....Hitler was a great public speaker
    • malex, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Oh, you bastards did NOT just digg down Kurt Vonnegut...
      >:(
    • veganpunk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Vonnegut kicks ass.
  • Burrito, on 05/15/2008, -15/+20As the president who's probably done more to damage this country than any in 150 years, I can't say I'm exactly surprised that he'd do this. But it really was disgusting, even for him.
  • Burrito, on 05/15/2008, -20/+32From Paul Begala: "George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself, our Nation, and the high office he holds. In a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, Mr. Bush forfeited the last scraps of his moral authority, dishonoring himself by using one of the world's most important pulpits to launch a false and vicious political attack against Barack Obama. I am such a strong supporter of Israel that when I worked in the White House some of my friends called me a "Likkud Democrat." It is especially appalling to supporters of Israel that Mr. Bush would stand on a hilltop in Jerusalem to invoke the Holocaust in order to make a cheap and deeply dishonest political point. I am a person of faith, so it is especially galling that a man who calls himself a brother in faith would stand in the Holy Land and violate one of the Commandments God gave to Moses: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This is what Mr. Bush said, according to the text released by the White House: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." His attack was disgraceful, demeaning and dishonest. Bush's own government has repeatedly conducted negotiations with terrorists and radicals, including: Iran. Bush sent Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, then posted to Baghdad, to negotiate with Iran over security issues affecting Iraq. Bush's current Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told ABC News, "We are willing to sit down with Iran face to face for talks on Iraqi security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We've had three rounds of those talks and we've told them we are ready to again." Libya. Although Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was behind the December, 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans, the Bush Administration conducted months of negotiations with the terrorists, culminating in a 2003 agreement to dismantle Libyan long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction; North Korea. The Bush Administration, led by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has held numerous direct negotiations with the North Korean regime, a charter member of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil." It should be noted that in each instance, the negotiations actually advanced America's security position. So even the Bush administration, by its actions, attests to the efficacy of negotiating with evildoers. All this is to say George W. Bush is a hypocrite. So deep is his cynicism that he would go on foreign soil to invoke history's greatest crime to condemn conduct he himself has engaged in. As an American I am ashamed that such a man represents me. I say this as someone who has not supported Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries; someone who has reservations about Sen. Obama's plan to engage Iran in talks without any preconditions. But there comes a time when intra-party rivalries must yield, and all of us must stand together against the degradation of the Office of the Presidency. "
    • TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Paragraph breaks are you friend.
    • Burrito, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Clearly, they are not.
    • krd1979, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1That was quite a speech Begala, too bad it was a self righteous load of crap... buried.
    • Lamadave222, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Hmmm. Paul Bagala....oh yes. His president was getting bj's in the White House while conducting the people's business. His president personally intervened to change trade rules so that China could get the technology that threatens us today. His president signed into law sexual harassment regulations that he did not feel compelled to follow, Democrats are children, Republicans adults.
  • hrhs556x, on 05/15/2008, -28/+8(YELLING BUSH SUCKS BECAUSE ITS THE COOL THING TO DO)
  • Olfster, on 05/15/2008, -14/+44This guy should really look in the mirror. 50 years from now he will be remembered as the "empty suit" president that watched as Cheney and friends raped America, gouged out the middle class and lowered the standard of living for all but his and Cheney's friends and business associates. Disgusting.
    • yngtimmy, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3Excuse me, Im middle class. How has he gouged the middle class? We pay NOTHING in taxes. I get most if not all of my tax money back. How is this gouging us? I hate that argument because it is a popular political argument. Just because you have a ***** job that you don't like and isnt paying you enough isnt government's fault. Its your fault.
      • drakethegreat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I hate people like you who claim because I think I'm middle class (even if you are) and its not bad for me that must mean that I can speak on EVERYONE'S behalf. No you can't. Look at the division of wealth in the last ten years. Any economist, sociologist, even the idiots on TV have all pointed out that the division is growing. The reality of the situation is quite simple. The government should not be returning tax dollars when it has to produce more cash just to pay the massive bills of the wars we are fighting (don't forget about Afghanistan). To put it simply, you made a massive logical fallacy and I'm calling you on it.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1Dude, you want a ***** standard of living, talk to someone who was alive in '79.

      Not being able to make your beemer payment != gouged.
      • Olfster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Dude, I was very much alive in '79 watching and feeling the affects an oil cartel had on my parents and the US as a whole. I ate bean slop and bread for breakfast lunch and dinner while watching roaches crawl the walls. If you think that Mr. Cheney and his puppet have not sent us, as a nation, on a course that could become very much like or worse than the 70's, all the while enriching themselves, you need to wake up. I know what hard times are like and I know what it is like to be without, that being said, a beemer is the last thing I would purchase with my money and trust me if I did I would not be making payments.
  • shyboy2008, on 05/15/2008, -34/+15i been saying this along, Obama is Hitler in black makeup. I truly believe he will put white males and females into concentration camps for the years of enslavement by white Americans. His message of hope is eerily similiar to Hitlers speeches. With his pro-terrorists stance on issues and his hatred of America by not wearing the american flag on his shirt or not putting his hand over his heart while the anthem is playing, it will all add up eventually to America's doom. DONT VOTE OBAMA.
    • peticsu, on 05/15/2008, -4/+7no, paranoid ***** like you are America's doom...

      you are like the gestapo, anyone who doesn't wear the flag pin or doesn't have the bumper sticker is considered anti-American
    • purkel, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5youre a retard. pro-terrorist? are you crazy? hatred of america? hes trying to change our country for the better man.
    • Chassit, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Holy ***** *****!!! Are you seriously that insane? Go see a shrink if you truly believe that!
    • an0nymous, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5You cannot be serious. Let me check your post history:
      Oh.
      Oh, you're a insincere troll. Pretty high negatives too, I guess that's an accomplishment.
      King Douchebag or whatever.
    • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3I truly hope this is sarcasm...

      If not, do all of us a favor and go lay down on some train tracks..... Your contribution to society will actually increase.
    • twopoint0, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Shyboy, its people like you that weaken my otherwise unflappable confidence in everyday Americans, and lead me to question my conviction that we can repair our standing in the world. If your comment truly reflects your beliefs, you are not only ignorant and disgraceful, you are also a despicable excuse for an American.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0Shyboy is a ***** notorious troll people... don't feed him.
    • Darksoul, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Sigh hes at it again I agree he is a troll don't feed him.
    • avenu420, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1You're yummy! I really do hope we can become friends. You have such a great outlook on life and things in general.

      Love me, Shyboy, love me.
    • moxanot, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1lol dugg for irony
  • chrissku, on 05/15/2008, -13/+20I guess when you're labeled the worst President in history you start feeling comfortable throwing all kinds of ***** at the wall just to see what will stick. I can't wait until he is out of office and we get our country back.
    • Myakka, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Given the Bush-man's propensity for breaking every rule in sight, I won't put any trust into the idea of his leaving the presidency until it happens!

      He's been usurping power right and left. The next step is to can the idea that another can be elected to replace him. --