I like how we’re supposed to be nonchalant about 100,000 Iraqi deaths, but 3,000 American deaths are worth trillions of dollars of warfare. Imagine what we would have done to Iraq if Al-Queda had killed 100,000 Americans!
Better yet, let’s not. That particular rooster hasn’t come home to roost yet.
So was he just the worst second term President or did the democracy re-elect him knowing he was a sack of shit?
The first election was in dispute. The second was too.
http://www.maxim.com/humor/stupid-fun/86265/mysterious-death-bushs-cyber-guru.html
Evidence does not always pop up after something happened. but there was so much fishy about those elections that it should creep out all Americans.
I’ll go with the public is really stupid and enjoyed reelecting him as it was amply clear by Nov 2004 that he was really, really bad.
I will say, in 2005, I had a woman where I worked actually walk up to me and tell me in so many words she was sorry, she shouldn’t have voted for him the second time. OTOH, I am in a class right now with a man who thinks he was the greatest president we have ever had and a teacher who thinks that the only problem was he did not do enough in his 2nd term.
Assuming that voting isn’t fixed anyway.
A crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich, and I’ll be damned if I’m gonna sit and eat that when I ordered filet mignon, no matter how many garnishes they put on it.
Gone a bit quiet on the thought that a second term President is merely the agent of a democracy that knows his policies and abilities ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
[QUOTE]
Again the majority of the killings were done by the militias and other non Americans. And many of the civilian deaths were accidental-natural in war.
So was the 1960 election-it was much closer than '04 after all.
Plus if you’re going to blame Bush for Katrina (a natural disaster) than certainly Buchanan should be blamed for the Civil War (a man-made event).
So you assert that Gore would have started endless unpaid wars and removed as much regulation as possible? No, they were not the same. If Gore was in ,I am sure we would have had put money into green energy . He would not have blown the big one, the one that made us a bit more moral. He would not have attacked a country that did not attack us. Starting preemptive wars is a horrible blow to American values and prestige. We can not get that back.
You do not pay much attention then.
The important thing is that more deaths than normal came as a result of the invasion. The Lancet came later with 650,000 and then the ORB came with 1 million.
He was talking not only about the 2004 one Curtis Lemay.
In 2000 Gore got 543895 more individual votes than Bush. BTW Nixon decided not to contest the close state results because he took into consideration the will of the majority of the people that voted for Kennedy, even when that majority was just 100,000 votes.
Bush just could not be bothered about the will of the people.
And third strike that shows you do not pay any attention, Bush is condemned for the **reaction **to Katrina, not for the hurricane itself.
So, do tell, if he did such a damn fine job, why the next Republican candidate running for presidential office did not take advantage of a sitting president to campaign for him, preferring to go it alone?
I mean seriously, the candidate from his own party would rather not be associated with him during a hard fought campaign? An absolute first, on the political landscape. More telling still, the party understood perfectly.
Gore and Clinton went through much the same thing.
Nobody blames Bush for Katrina. they blame him for how badly he handled it.
The closeness of the elections is not the point at all. The Supreme Court putting him in the 1st time is. Then Blackwell, in concert with the voting machine manufacturers and some well placed hackers, helped him get in the 2nd time.
He was not supposed to be president. Jeb was. he jumped the line thanks to Rove and some other ambitious handlers.
While Gore didn’t seek a lot of support from Clinton, it was seen as one of his shortcoming in his race for the White House.
McCain chose zero support from Bush, and it was considered a wise move even by those in the Republican party, if I recall correctly.
I recall a political cartoon at the time of Gore sinking into quicksand, Clinton holding out a hand to save him, and Gore refusing to take it while declaring “I’m my own man!”
A cartoon with McCain and Bush in their place would have been ridiculous.
Which as seen by the Wikipedia article is most likely unlikely.
Of course a lot of those 100,000 votes (if the allegations are true) could have been faked or Nixon votes destroyed and so on.
Similarly Buchanan personally did not cause the secession of the South-it’s his reaction that’s condemned.
Ok, now I see that you are unlikely to be accurate, you have not explained the 1 million deaths found by the ORB survey. (And just a Wikipedia cite will not do)
It was Nixon himself that made the decision not to challenge the result because of the plurality, and once again one has to point at your lack of attention: the 100000 votes came from all over America, unlikely to find all of them to be fraudulent.
That is not what you said, you told us that we blamed Bush for the natural disaster, but just continue to sound like an ignorant. It helps convince others about how out of it you are.
Think about it logically. Had a million Iraqis (primarily young males) had died than we would have seen a complete societal and economical collapse.
Well than how does that contrast Al Gore’s decision to drag out the election? Yes he won the popular vote-but that isn’t what the Constitution says.
Look I never thought that Democrats think that somehow Bush caused a hurricane to appear-that’s laughable.
You mean, like actually happened?
Far, far worse than that. Plus if those surveys are true the overwhelming majority of deaths haven’t been reported to authorities.