Thank you America!!

in theory YES...but the machines didn;t work....which led to even more troubles....totally comical if you ask me....BUSH won by about 20% so it wasn;t an issue...BUT if it was a 1% margin the uproar would have been huge...How many people would have claimed their vote didn;t count ect....

 

The real problem is partisanship, which we saw from the Republicans, the Democrats, the Florida Supreme Court, and from the US Supreme court.

Everyone knew what was going to happen, strictly on the basis of partisan voting at the Florida Supreme court level, and at the US Supreme court level.

The fact is that if the roles had been reversed, the Republicans would be wining about it today, just like the Democrats.

No one was truly focused on what is right, just on who they thought should win.

Panzies, all of them.

 

Even liberals have credited Mr. Bush with doing more than his predecessor to help Africa. In May, Live Aid founder Bob Geldof said Mr. Bush is far more committed than Mr. Clinton to fighting AIDS and famine on the continent.

"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver," said Mr. Geldof, an Irish musician and activist who in 1985 staged the world's largest rock concert to combat starvation in Africa.

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy," he said.

In February actor Richard Gere lashed out against Mr. Clinton's record during an AIDS benefit attended by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat.

"Senator Clinton, I'm sorry, your husband did nothing for AIDS for eight years," Mr. Gere said from the podium, although Mrs. Clinton had left the room. Mr. Clinton later belittled Mr. Gere for the remark. . . .

Mr. Foote, of the Constituency for Africa, said the president's trip will build on the accomplishments of Mr. Clinton.

"Clinton opened the door and broke some new ground when he went to Africa," he said. "But in terms of the content, there wasn't much delivered.

"While Clinton said, 'Yes, in fact, Africa matters, and we ought to give it some thought, ' he really was playing to the African-American community," he said. "When you say Africa matters, you've got to beef up the team, and he didn't do that."

"The Bush team looked at the continent, understood what they needed to do and did it," he said. "I mean, that's Bush's hallmark; he sizes the situation up and then he's ready to move.

"He's handled it a lot more substantively," Mr. Foote said. "Clinton gave us a bone, and Bush put some meat on the bone."

Hmmmmm!

 

I will preface this by first saying that Clinton was a devient , lying blow hard ........

HOWEVER.......Clinton was the Prez. of the USA...Not the continent of Africa......Who the Hell is Richard Gere???? He'c a f*ing actor...he pretends for a living...give me a break....Since when does the prez of the USA have to answer to Richard Gere? Mr. Hide the Gerbil????? And Bob Geldoff????? He only got involved in the whoel game to save a music career that flopped....In fact, GELDOFF HAS NEVER accounted for all the $$$ the world donated to live aid...In fact at least 50 million has vannished ..gimme a break... Ihate clinton, but truthfully why are we responsible for Africa's problems

 

will preface this by first saying that Clinton was a devient , lying blow hard ........

HOWEVER.......Clinton was the Prez. of the USA...Not the continent of Africa......Who the Hell is Richard Gere???? He'c a f*ing actor...he pretends for a living...give me a break....Since when does the prez of the USA have to answer to Richard Gere? Mr. Hide the Gerbil????? And Bob Geldoff????? He only got involved in the whoel game to save a music career that flopped....In fact, GELDOFF HAS NEVER accounted for all the $$$ the world donated to live aid...In fact at least 50 million has vannished ..gimme a break... Ihate clinton, but truthfully why are we responsible for Africa's problems

I couldn't agree more.

I only posted that because of two points:

1. Even these worthless liberals recognized that anything Clinton did was to get a few more votes and then he only talked about doing something, did nothing, and still wanted credit.

2. Bush does something, not for credit, doesn't get any credit and is still trashed by the lying liberals.

 

Where is your proof of this statement?

 

"The Bush team looked at the continent, understood what they needed to do and did it," he said. "I mean, that's Bush's hallmark; he sizes the situation up and then he's ready to move.

"He's handled it a lot more substantively," Mr. Foote said. "Clinton gave us a bone, and Bush put some meat on the bone."

Wasn't it earlier this year or last that Bush committed quite a sum to Africa to fight aids. Just my memory but I will try to find the story I read.

 

Bush proposed $15 billion in spending on AIDS in Africa over 5 years. He has signed an authorization bill for $3 billion for fiscal 2004.

 

Originally it was "created equal under the law", everybody should have the same access to protection from and by govt. in other words. It's been twisted to fit socialist thinking so it means equal opportunity, etc.

Max

 

The White Man Unburdened
By Norman Mailer
Exeunt: lightning and thunder, shock and awe. Dust, ash, fog, fire, smoke, sand, blood, and a good deal of waste now move to the wings. The stage, however, remains occupied. The question posed at curtain-rise has not been answered. Why did we go to war? If no real weapons of mass destruction are found, the question will keen in pitch.

Or, if some weapons are uncovered in Iraq, it is likely that even more have been moved to new hiding places beyond the Iraqi border. Should horrific events take place, we can count on a predictable response: "Good, honest, innocent Americans died today because of evil al-Qaeda terrorists." Yes, we will hear the President's voice before he even utters such words. (For those of us who are not happy with George W. Bush, we may as well recognize that living with him in the Oval Office is like being married to a mate who always says exactly what you know in advance he or she is going to say, which helps to account for why more than half of America now appears to love him.)

The key question remains—why did we go to war? It is not yet answered. The host of responses has already produced a cognitive stew. But the most painful single ingredient at the moment is, of course, the discovery of the graves. We have relieved the world of a monster who killed untold numbers, mega-numbers, of victims. Nowhere is any emphasis put upon the fact that many of the bodies were of the Shiites of southern Iraq who have been decimated repeatedly in the last twelve years for daring to rebel against Saddam in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War. Of course, we were the ones who encouraged them to revolt in the first place, and then failed to help them. Why? There may have been an ongoing argument in the first Bush administration which was finally won by those who believed that a Shiite victory over Saddam could result in a host of Iraqi imams who might make common cause with the Iranian ayatollahs, Shiites joining with Shiites! Today, from the point of view of the remaining Iraqi Shiites, it would be hard for us to prove to them that they were not the victims of a double cross. So they may look upon the graves that we congratulate ourselves for having liberated as sepulchral voices calling out from their tombs—asking us to take a share of the blame. Which, of course, we will not.

Yes, our guilt for a great part of those bodies remains a large subtext and Saddam was creating mass graves all through the 1970s and 1980s. He killed Communists en masse in the 1970s, which didn't bother us a bit. Then he slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis during the war with Iran—a time when we supported him. A horde of those newly discovered graves go back to that period. Of course, real killers never look back.

The administration, however, was concerned only with how best to expedite the war. They hastened to look for many a justifiable reason. The Iraqis were a nuclear threat; they were teeming with weapons of mass destruction; they were working closely with al-Qaeda; they had even been the dirty geniuses behind 9/11. The reasons offered to the American public proved skimpy, unverifiable, and void of the realpolitik of our need to get a choke-hold on the Middle East for many a reason more than Israel- Palestine. We had to sell the war on false pretenses.

The intensity of the falsification could best be seen as a reflection of the enormous damage 9/11 has brought to America's morale, particularly the core—the corporation. All the organization people high and low, managers, division heads, secretaries, salesmen, accountants, market specialists, all that congeries of corporate office American, plus all who had relatives, friends, or classmates who worked in the Twin Towers—the shock traveled into the fundament of the American psyche. And the American working class identified with the warriors who were lost fighting that blaze, the firemen and the police, all instantly ennobled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a political bonanza for Bush provided he could deliver an appropriate sense of revenge to the millions— or is it the tens of millions?—who identified directly with those incinerated in the Twin Towers. When Osama bin Laden failed to be captured by the posses we sent to Afghanistan, Bush was thrust back to ongoing domestic problems that did not give any immediate suggestion that they could prove solution-friendly. The economy was sinking, the market was down, and some classic bastions of American faith (corporate integrity, the FBI, and the Catholic Church—to cite but three) had each suffered a separate and grievous loss of face. Increasing joblessness was undermining national morale. Since our administration was conceivably not ready to tackle any one of the serious problems looming before them that did not involve enriching the top, it was natural for the administration to feel an impulse to move into larger ventures, thrusts into the empyrean—war! We could say we went to war because we very much needed a successful war as a species of psychic rejuvenation. Any major excuse would do—nuclear threat, terrorist nests, weapons of mass destruction —we could always make the final claim that we were liberating the Iraqis. Who could argue with that? One could not. One could only ask: What will the cost be to our democracy?

Be it said that the administration knew something a good many of us did not—it knew that we had a very good, perhaps even an extraordinarily good, if essentially untested, group of armed forces, a skilled, disciplined, well-motivated military, career-focused and run by a field-rank and general staff who were intelligent, articulate, and considerably less corrupt than any other power cohort in America.

In such a pass, how could the White House fail to use them? They would prove quintessential morale-builders to a core element of American life— those tens of millions of Americans who had been spiritually wounded by 9/11. They could also serve an even larger group, which had once been near to 50 percent of the population, and remained key to the President's political footing. This group had taken a real beating. As a matter of collective ego, the good average white American male had had very little to nourish his morale since the job market had gone bad, nothing, in fact, unless he happened to be a member of the armed forces. There, it was certainly different. The armed forces had become the paradigmatic equal of a great young athlete looking to test his true size. Could it be that there was a bozo out in the boondocks who was made to order, and his name was Iraq? Iraq had a tough rep, but not much was left to him inside. A dream opponent. A desert war is designed for an air force whose state-of-the-art is comparable in perfection to a top-flight fashion model on a runway. Yes, we would liberate the Iraqis.

So we went ahead against all obstacles—of which the UN was the first. Wantonly, shamelessly, proudly, exuberantly, at least one half of our prodigiously divided America could hardly wait for the new war. We understood that our television was going to be terrific. And it was. Sanitized but terrific —which is, after all, exactly what network and good cable television are supposed to be.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------