George Bush changes the focus on the war against terrorism.

[Allison Johnson]

What an interesting change of direction. Check this out.

CNN.com

Ali

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually he's doing this in preparation for the November elections...

[102first_hussars]

November? doesnt he have like a year or so to go?

[Allison Johnson]

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

November? doesnt he have like a year or so to go?

Maybe after the Clinton era the issue of infidelity has become more of a government policy.

Ali

[FLYBOYJ]

There are congressional elections in November. Republicans are in danger of loosing control of congress and the senate...

[Allison Johnson]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

There are congressional elections in November. Republicans are in danger of loosing control of congress and the senate...

Does this mean that there may be less US Expeditionary Forces stomping over the world? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti American. I'm anti US policy overseas and George Bush.

Ali

[Allison Johnson]

I have always thought that the relationship between George and Tony was too close and now here is the proof. Now what are we voters going to do about it!

YouTube - George Bush and Tony Blair Endless Love

Ali

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Allison Johnson

Does this mean that there may be less US Expeditionary Forces stomping over the world? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti American. I'm anti US policy overseas and George Bush.

Ali

Possibly...

When the first gulf war ended, the US was criticized for not taking out Saddam Hussein - we did. Personally I think we've been there too long, but that's another story...

The Afghanistan adventure removed a terrorist regime responsible for 9-11, I think that episode was more than justified as well as the continually presence in that part of the world. The area is a **** hole and it's been out of control for years and until a portion of that population could behave like good little Muslims, the west needs a controlling presence in the area.

Aside from that the last time there was US Expeditionary Forces stomping over the world was in Bosnia. NATO bitched at us for not participating and Clinton gave in and supported the effort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bush fan, but if we weren't doing these little adventures I'm sure we'd be criticized for it as well....

[syscom3]

The US is continually in a damned if we do and damned if we dont approach for world affairs. When I was in London back in March, I talked to a few people in the pubs, and I was flabbergasted by how much disinformation about Bush and the republicans was passed as fact by the media, and believed hook, line and sinker.

When Bush took office, he intended to reduce the US military presence around the world and become more insular..... and the world criticized us for it. Then when we take legitimate action to defend our interests, we are condemned for unilateral actions.

Many Europeans and liberals around the world complained for decades that the US didnt use its military and political influence to remove dictators that continually violated human rights. Then when we actually do something along those lines, they call us warmongerers.

The best thing about this war on terror is we now know who our friends are. As far as I'm concerned, NATO and the UN is dead and we should stop fooling ourselves these are institutions worth saving.

Decades from now when the history books are written, Bush will be given good grades in beginning the fight on terror, but given flunking grades in effectively communicating the goals and reasons of why we fight. His political handlers have neutered his message to the point thats its now too late for him to save his presidency.

(the attached cartoon is kind of irrelevent to this thread, but It gave me a chuckle when I saw it this morning, heheheheh)

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The US is continually in a damned if we do and damned if we dont approach for world affairs. When I was in London back in March, I talked to a few people in the pubs, and I was flabbergasted by how much disinformation about Bush and the republicans was passed as fact by the media, and believed hook, line and sinker.

When Bush took office, he intended to reduce the US military presence around the world and become more insular..... and the world criticized us for it. Then when we take legitimate action to defend our interests, we are condemned for unilateral actions.

Many Europeans and liberals around the world complained for decades that the US didnt use its military and political influence to remove dictators that continually violated human rights. Then when we actually do something along those lines, they call us warmongerers.

The best thing about this war on terror is we now know who our friends are. As far as I'm concerned, NATO and the UN is dead and we should stop fooling ourselves these are institutions worth saving.

Decades from now when the history books are written, Bush will be given good grades in beginning the fight on terror, but given flunking grades in effectively communicating the goals and reasons of why we fight. His political handlers have neutered his message to the point thats its now too late for him to save his presidency.

(the attached cartoon is kind of irrelevent to this thread, but It gave me a chuckle when I saw it this morning, heheheheh)

I agree wholeheartedly to what you have said except that I suspect Bush has gone along with the lack of communication. His latest speeches were impressive and should have been made years ago.

It seems Ms. Johnson has bought into the main stream media bias against both the US and Bush in particular.

[Erich]

it all boils down to misinformation guided by the would be creators of all news, the TV and radio media personell. Truth be damned nearly 97 and 1/2 % of the world do not know the turth about why "we" went into the mideast in the first place and why we are still there.........

no matter it isn't going to give a flip of the rusted coin what Blair or Bush do now as they are both doomed. it will now at least be under thewatchful caretakers eyes in 2008 what will happen to the US troops contingent. I can only pray Hillary doesn't get elected or it's all over and we will feel the physcial force(s) again within our borders

v/r

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Erich

I can only pray Hillary doesn't get elected

v/r

Doubt you have to worry about that one. As I heard it put by some pundit, "She won't get elected because she reminds too many men of their first wives".

That Dem down in New Mexico, Richardson I think his name is, has a decent chance of getting the nod for the Dems. But NE liberals never win the presidency. The last North Eastern Dem that got that far was Kennedy and he was a hawk. Far too much of the country doesn't identify with NE Libs and, in some cases, despise them. Hillary is a good case in point. She got elected in the only town in the NE that she could. NYC. She is from Ill, worked in and was the wife of the Gov of state of Arkansas and ends up going to NYC cause that was the only real shot she had.

Then again, that election is over 2 years away.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Allison Johnson

I have always thought that the relationship between George and Tony was too close and now here is the proof. Now what are we voters going to do about it!

Ali

Both of them are out of here in the max, 2.5yrs. Blare is gone in what, 8-9 months. Both are now lame ducks.

Be interesting to see how the next election turns out. I have liberal friends who are rubbing their hands in glee thinking that they are going to get the House back. After that, the first thing the hard core bunch seems to think will happen is an impeachment trial of Bush. Pelosi has said she would not allow this to happen but the pressure may be too great. Plus, she is definitely no fan of this administration.

This is going to get weird very fast. Got a feeling this is going to be a very nasty political campagne on all sides.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Both of them are out of here in the max, 2.5yrs. Blare is gone in what, 8-9 months. Both are now lame ducks.

Be interesting to see how the next election turns out. I have liberal friends who are rubbing their hands in glee thinking that they are going to get the House back. After that, the first thing the hard core bunch seems to think will happen is an impeachment trial of Bush. Pelosi has said she would not allow this to happen but the pressure may be too great. Plus, she is definitely no fan of this administration.

This is going to get weird very fast. Got a feeling this is going to be a very nasty political campagne on all sides.

If the Demos do take over the house, I suspect there will be no impeachment of the President. There is too much documentation on the Demo support of the President at the beginning of the war in Iraq that they will not want to brought to light outside Foxnews.

[davparlr]

The Demos have not won yet. They have an uncanny ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.