Dean Gets It Right

Howard Dean was criticized today for saying that Bush trots out a new terror warning every time he needs to obfuscate the real news. Now it is revealed that the weekend's dire terrorist warnings come from THREE YEAR OLD information. Yet Ridge would have us think that the bombings are expected any day now, based upon this old information. How much money was spent to upgrade the security at these buildings today? Why not three years ago?

>Howard Dean was criticized today for saying that Bush trots

>out a new terror warning every time he needs to obfuscate the

>real news. Now it is revealed that the weekend's dire

>terrorist warnings come from THREE YEAR OLD information. Yet

>Ridge would have us think that the bombings are expected any

>day now, based upon this old information. How much money was

>spent to upgrade the security at these buildings today? Why

>not three years ago?

You're quite confused, Lucky. The information on which this alert was based may have been from documents created three years earlier, but it was DISCOVERED and OBTAINED by the U.S. Government only within the past several weeks, as a result of the arrest and interrogation by an Al Qaeda member captured by the Pakistani Government in July. Therefore, the alert could not have been issued any earlier, since the Government just learned about the threat.

I trust you understand this distinction now.

And, needless to say, if the Bush Administration issues a warning like this, then they are bad and manipulative.

But if they don't issue a warning, and an attack occurs, then the same people criticizing them for issuing a warning would be screaming about how they have blood on their hands for failing to have done so.

That's why neurotic Bush-haters so repulse and sicken everyone except for themselves. If you don't believe that, go review tape of the Democratic convention - where Bush-haters were either banished or forced to pretend that they were something other than that.

Why do you think that was? Do you think it's because - as I just said - "neurotic Bush-haters so repulse and sicken everyone except for themselves."

>The information on which this

>alert was based may have been from documents created three

>years earlier, but it was DISCOVERED and OBTAINED by the U.S.

>Government only within the past several weeks, as a result of

>the arrest and interrogation by an Al Qaeda member captured by

>the Pakistani Government in July.

No one has reported that the information came from interrogation; they simply got the guy's computer. And I don't remember Bush or Ridge or Bloomberg mentioning that the building surveillance was done three years ago; that information had to be leaked by intelligence officials who were disgusted by how stale news was played as fresh.

The current Administration exploit this latest 'find' for political reasons?? Dubya's trump card = terror.

I also liked how Ridge gave Shrub a plug in his announcement, "This would not have happen with out his strong leadership... And cooperation with all our allies, Pakistan". Wasn't it reported that Pakistan was pressured to produce a big arrest during the DNC?

>The current Administration exploit this latest 'find' for

>political reasons?? Dubya's trump card = terror.

>I also liked how Ridge gave Shrub a plug in his announcement,

>"This would not have happen with out his strong leadership...

>And cooperation with all our allies, Pakistan". Wasn't it

>reported that Pakistan was pressured to produce a big arrest

>during the DNC?

How come nobdoy who "thinks" like glutes - or BoN, or Trilingual, or Ignoto, or RickMunroe, or any other similar types who post here - got to speak at the Democratic National Convention (or, if they were given 3 mintues, were required not to say what they think)?

How come nobody at the entire convention, at least during any important hours, said:

* The war in Iraq was fought for Halliburton's profits

* The Bush Administration creates fake alerts to scare people

* Bush is stupid

* Dick Cheney and Karl Rove really run the Government

* Bush officials committed crimes by leaking Valerie Plame's identity

* The war in Iraq was wrong and shouldn't have been fought

* We shouldn't fight wars without UN approval

* Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen

* Bush authorized torture in Guantanomo and Abu Grahib

* The Bush Administration is planning concentration camps for gays in the second term

* The Bush Administraiton is an illegal junta that came to power in a coup

* Bush is planning to implement terrorist attacks on the U.S. shortly before the election in order to win

Shouldn't the American people know about all of this? Shouldn't the Democrats be talking about these important things during their convention, when they have the attenion of the entire country?

How come none of the bad, corrupt things done by the Bush Administration which I've been reading about on this Board for the last 2 years were even mentioned - let alone featured - at the Democratic Convention?

Doesn't this tell you just how freakish, embarrassing, and ridiculous you are? Even your own party feels a need to hide you and the psychologically disturbed dribble that oozes out of your mouth.

Well at least the Demos paraded out real Democrats, from Kennedy to the Clintons. And the Repubs are going to do the same?? Currently scheduled to be trotted out are Giulani and Schwarznegger (and Chaka Kahn!!) See how many votes they would get by parading out Ashcroft, Rove, Wolfowitz et al.

>Well at least the Demos paraded out real Democrats, from

>Kennedy to the Clintons.

The Clintons were for the war in Iraq, for welfare reform, and never say anything even remotely similar to the paranoid sickly spittle which you puke up on a daily basis. So if the Clintons are real Democrats, what does that make you?

And the Repubs are going to do the

>same?? Currently scheduled to be trotted out are Giulani and

>Schwarznegger (and Chaka Kahn!!)

Two of the keynote speakers are two of the most socially conservative officials in the country - Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. James Inhofe, in addition - of course - to Bush and Cheney. Sounds pretty representative to me.

In general, Republicans don't have to hide what they believe on social issues or fiscal policy because those views are the same as what the American people think. It's the Democrats who have to hide the likes of you and your NAZIS-ARE-COMING stupidity and your THE-FRENCH-ARE-SUPERIOR sickness, because they know that people like you will do nothing but drive voters away in droves.

Kudos to them for being smart enough to realize that the glutes of the world have to be kept under the bed, hidden and ostracized.

>

>How come nobdoy who "thinks" like glutes - or BoN, or

>Trilingual, or Ignoto, or RickMunroe, or any other similar

>types who post here - got to speak at the Democratic National

>Convention (or, if they were given 3 mintues, were required

>not to say what they think)?

And I'm sure the Repubs would trot out you and Hawkster. Heck, I'd tune in for that one!

Once again, Doug demonstrates that old reliable truism: All repiglicans lie about everything all the time.

The information was three years old.

Unless the information somehow coincidentally indicated a terror attack for the dates just after it HAPPENED to be found, we have yet another Bush lie.

The only purpose of any of this was to take attention away from Kerry and Edwards and scare the beJesus out of the American people again. This is the only thing Shrubya has left in his arsenal and quite frankly, his use of the war on terror as a political tool is disgusting.

So naturally, Dougie refers to the old RNC/Rove talking points to try and distract you from yet another Repiglican lie.

All Repiglicans lie about everything all the time.

>How come nobody at the entire convention, at least during any

>important hours, said:

>

>* The war in Iraq was fought for Halliburton's profits

>* The Bush Administration creates fake alerts to scare people

>* Bush is stupid

>* Dick Cheney and Karl Rove really run the Government

>* Bush officials committed crimes by leaking Valerie Plame's

>identity

>* The war in Iraq was wrong and shouldn't have been fought

>* We shouldn't fight wars without UN approval

>* Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen

>* Bush authorized torture in Guantanomo and Abu Grahib

>* The Bush Administration is planning concentration camps for

>gays in the second term

>* The Bush Administraiton is an illegal junta that came to

>power in a coup

>* Bush is planning to implement terrorist attacks on the U.S.

>shortly before the election in order to win

>

>Shouldn't the American people know about all of this?

>Shouldn't the Democrats be talking about these important

>things during their convention, when they have the attenion of

>the entire country?

>

>How come none of the bad, corrupt things done by the Bush

>Administration which I've been reading about on this Board for

>the last 2 years were even mentioned - let alone featured - at

>the Democratic Convention?

>

>Doesn't this tell you just how freakish, embarrassing, and

>ridiculous you are? Even your own party feels a need to hide

>you and the psychologically disturbed dribble that oozes out

>of your mouth.

Actually there was no need to discuss any of this during the convention. Everyone in the hall and over 50% of Americans know that it is all true. Anyone who reads or knows about this administration is clear on all of this.

Shrubya lies again

Increased Terrorism Alert Based on Political Needs, Uses Outdated Info

By WILLIAM D. McTAVISH

Aug 3, 2004, 08:47

The increased terror alerts in New York, New Jersey and Washington are based more on President George W. Bush's political campaign needs than any actual threat and the information used to justify the alerts is three years old, intelligence pros complain.

The alerts, planned weeks ago, came right after the Democratic National Convention in Boston as a carefully-orchestrated attempt to play on Bush’s strengths in the war against terrorism and blunt any momentum challenger John F. Kerry might have coming out of the convention.

Much of the "new" information cited as reasons for raising the alert dates back to 2001.

“The only real ‘increased chatter’ we’re seeing lately is between the White House and the Bush campaign headquarters in Arlington,” mutters one Homeland Security operative who spoke to Capitol Hill Blue only on condition of anonymity. “There’s no greater threat today than there was six months ago.”

DHS and the Department of Justice began talking up an increased terrorist threat during the Democratic Convention last week and scheduled release of the increased threat level over the weekend as both Bush and Kerry campaigned in the midwest.

Yet those who have seen the raw intel reports circulating between the various intelligence agencies say little information in them supports the claims of an increased threat of attack in the United States.

In fact, intelligence professionals say, the real threat from Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network continues to be in Iraq where the almost daily rash of car bombings tries to undermine the U.S. presence. They say White House and DHS warnings of an attack before the November elections are based more on political hope than any actual intelligence data.

“Al Qaeda is regrouping. We know that,” says an agent with the National Security Agency. “We’ve allowed them to rebuild because we diverted our attention from their activities in Afghanistan so we could invade Iraq. That was a strategic error and, somewhere down the road, we will pay for it. But they are not ready yet to launch another coordinated attack on the level of September 11, 2001.”

The buzz within the intelligence communities has also reached law enforcement agencies in New York, New Jersey and Washington where millions of dollars in resources must be committed to the increased terror alerts.

While Washington police Chief Charles Ramsey publicly endorses the terror alerts, he complains bitterly to his staff that he and other police agencies have become “taxpayer-supported campaign workers for the Bush re-election campaign.”

Sources within the Department of Homeland Security say DHS Secretary Tom Ridge argued against raising the terror alert and going public with a list of specific buildings

but Attorney General John Ashcroft overruled him.

Ridge has told aides he will quit his job even if President Bush is re-elected, saying he is tired of seeing politics take precedence over security. Ridge also complains about having to deal with Ashcroft, a Bible-quoting zealot who has Bush’s ear.

“This whole alert game is a cosmetic saber-rattle, a show of force to try and convince the American public that we’re on top of things,” says one FBI agent. “Sadly, we’re not. When the next attack comes, it will be when we least expect it and when we don’t have an increased alert.”

Asked in morning television interviews whether material gathered more than three years ago was out of date, White House homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, claimed this was not the case.

She admitted, however, that al Qaeda had originally collected information about key financial buildings in the United States in 2000 and 2001.

The Washington Post and The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that officials were still analyzing documents seized late last month in Pakistan that showed al Qaeda was gathering information about specific U.S. targets.

Federal authorities admitted they were unsure whether al Qaeda's surveillance continued, the newspapers reported.

The Post today cited officials as saying that much of the information al Qaeda gathered on buildings in Washington, New York and Newark, New Jersey, was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including floor plans.

"What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack," a senior U.S. official told the Post.

Spokesmen for the White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4964.shtml

>Actually there was no need to discuss any of this during the

>convention. Everyone in the hall and over 50% of Americans

>know that it is all true. Anyone who reads or knows about

>this administration is clear on all of this.

I would ask what the basis is for your assetion that "over 50% of Americans" believe the list of idiotic fantasies which I listed, but there's no need for me to ask, since I already know - you just made that "fact" up. At least you're in the right party.

And even if your invented fact were true, it wouldn't address anything I said. The point of political speeches is to perusade those who don't already agree with you that what you think is true. So even if 50% of Americans believed that list of paranoid fantasies, you would still expect the speakers at the Democratic convention to articulate them -to convince the other 50% who don't already believe it.

Clearly, the reason why nobody at the convention said any of these things is the same reason why none of the speakers there said things like: "Shrubya lies again" - because they are embarrassed to be associated with such juvenile pap and they know that if the American people realize that this is how liberals REALLY think and speak, the Democrats will do about as well this year as they did in 1972, 1984 and 1988.

So they have to pretend that people like you and glutes and BoN aren't in their party, and that the things you think aren't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party - because they know how repulsive stuff like that is to most voters, who, after all, are adults.

RE: Shrubya lies again

<In fact, intelligence professionals say, the real threat from Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network continues to be in Iraq where the almost daily rash of car bombings tries to undermine the U.S. presence. They say White House and DHS warnings of an attack before the November elections are based more on political hope than any actual intelligence data.>

What better proof that America is more safe now then it was before we invaded Iraq! Why is not the administration amplifying this point? Since so many poor and minorities enlist in the military this really is a great way for republicans to do away with more people who may vote against them in the next election too. Maybe he could also open the military to gays, send them over there to be even more bait for them and kill many birds with one stone. We would be safer here, the radical right would have an ongoing way to exterminate their most hated populations of Americans, Bush would have done his service to them and would not have to worry about tinkering with the constitution to garner their vote, Gays would get to serve in the military, EVERYONE would be happy.

RE: Shrubya lies again

>What better proof that America is more safe now then it was

>before we invaded Iraq! Why is not the administration

>amplifying this point?

Good point. Everyone said that if we invaded Iraq, not only would there never be another terrorist attack again; there'd never even be another threat of an attack. So by pointing out that there is now a threat of an attack, you really got them good! What answer could there possibly be to this brillance?

Since so many poor and minorities

>enlist in the military this really is a great way for

>republicans to do away with more people who may vote against

>them in the next election too. Maybe he could also open the

>military to gays, send them over there to be even more bait

>for them and kill many birds with one stone.

This would have been a really funny joke if it made any sense. Too bad the whole thing makes no sense, since people in the military - even those overseas - can and do vote. Surely you remember that lovely little effort by the Democrats in the 2000 election to disqualify the overseas Florida ballots of those in uniform. So the whole premise of your joke is erroneous. Not a good way to start a joke.

>safer here, the radical right would have an ongoing way to

>exterminate their most hated populations of Americans, Bush

>would have done his service to them and would not have to

>worry about tinkering with the constitution to garner their

>vote, Gays would get to serve in the military, EVERYONE would

>be happy.

How come nobody sounded like THIS at the Democratic convention? Aren't you guys really upset that your "voices" were suppressed?

RE: Shrubya lies again

And speaking of efforts to disenfranchise voters, as Katherine Harris and JEB! did in 2000:

August 2nd, 2004 2:32 pm

At a press conference in Boston yesterday, filmmaker Michael Moore announced he is bringing his cameras to Florida in November to make sure there is what he called a "huge spotlight" on state election officials when voters go to the polls. The director of "Fahrenheit 9/11" also said he plans to help pay for an "army of lawyers" who will be in target precincts ready to go to court if they spot any voting problems. He encouraged other independent filmmakers to join him in Florida. Here is Michael Moore speaking yesterday at a press conference organized by Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida:

"We are here this morning to put the Bush administration, both the one in Washington D.C. and the one in Tallahassee on notice. (applause) Too many people fought for too many years to guarantee that every American citizen would have the right to vote and that their votes would be counted. Too many people died for that right. And we are not going to dishonor those who gave their lives in the Civil Rights struggles by allowing these people to steal a second election. That is not going to happen! That's just not going to happen. (applause). And I wanted to stop by this breakfast this morning and tell you personally that I am committed. I am coming to Florida. I will be in Florida. And together, together, we will guarantee to every Floridian, that their vote will be counted this year. Make no mistake about it. I will be there, I will have my cameras there. We will put a huge spotlight on them. They will not get away with it this time." - Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=118

*************

Now we just need Jimmy Carter to monitor the election as he has done in other democratically challenged areas of the worls and we'll be all set.

RE: Shrubya lies again

And speaking of efforts to disenfranchise voters, as Katherine Harris and JEB! did in 2000:

August 2nd, 2004 2:32 pm

At a press conference in Boston yesterday, filmmaker Michael Moore announced he is bringing his cameras to Florida in November to make sure there is what he called a "huge spotlight" on state election officials when voters go to the polls. The director of "Fahrenheit 9/11" also said he plans to help pay for an "army of lawyers" who will be in target precincts ready to go to court if they spot any voting problems. He encouraged other independent filmmakers to join him in Florida. Here is Michael Moore speaking yesterday at a press conference organized by Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida:

"We are here this morning to put the Bush administration, both the one in Washington D.C. and the one in Tallahassee on notice. (applause) Too many people fought for too many years to guarantee that every American citizen would have the right to vote and that their votes would be counted. Too many people died for that right. And we are not going to dishonor those who gave their lives in the Civil Rights struggles by allowing these people to steal a second election. That is not going to happen! That's just not going to happen. (applause). And I wanted to stop by this breakfast this morning and tell you personally that I am committed. I am coming to Florida. I will be in Florida. And together, together, we will guarantee to every Floridian, that their vote will be counted this year. Make no mistake about it. I will be there, I will have my cameras there. We will put a huge spotlight on them. They will not get away with it this time." - Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=118

*************

Now we just need Jimmy Carter to monitor the election as he has done in other democratically challenged areas of the worls and we'll be all set.

RE: Shrubya lies again

<This would have been a really funny joke if it made any sense. Too bad the whole thing makes no sense, since people in the military - even those overseas - can and do vote. Surely you remember that lovely little effort by the Democrats in the 2000 election to disqualify the overseas Florida ballots of those in uniform. So the whole premise of your joke is erroneous. Not a good way to start a joke.>

Doug... sometimes your outrageous attempts to look stupid almost persuade me that you actually are. However, I am QUITE sure that you know that people who die when used at bait to deflect terrorist attacks indeed cannot vote.

One of MY favorite sports, Doug, to quote one of your posts, is watching you sacrifice you are keen understanding of someone else's post making yourself look like a complete buffoon just so that you can turn around and attack a point that was never made in the first place. It happens so often and yet I never tire of it. However, you too many times let your obvious intelligence shine through for this ruse of abject stupidity to pull the wool over my eyes. You and I both know you're not a moron.. so at least on my posts don't play one so that you can refute a point that was not there. You can do WAY better than that, and I'm sure your fans here share my disappointment in this latest effort.

RE: Shrubya lies again

<This would have been a really funny joke if it made any sense. Too bad the whole thing makes no sense, since people in the military - even those overseas - can and do vote. Surely you remember that lovely little effort by the Democrats in the 2000 election to disqualify the overseas Florida ballots of those in uniform. So the whole premise of your joke is erroneous. Not a good way to start a joke.>

Doug... sometimes your outrageous attempts to look stupid almost persuade me that you actually are. However, I am QUITE sure that you know that people who die when used at bait to deflect terrorist attacks indeed cannot vote.

One of MY favorite sports, Doug, to quote one of your posts, is watching you sacrifice you are keen understanding of someone else's post making yourself look like a complete buffoon just so that you can turn around and attack a point that was never made in the first place. It happens so often and yet I never tire of it. However, you too many times let your obvious intelligence shine through for this ruse of abject stupidity to pull the wool over my eyes. You and I both know you're not a moron.. so at least on my posts don't play one so that you can refute a point that was not there. You can do WAY better than that, and I'm sure your fans here share my disappointment in this latest effort.

>>The current Administration exploit this latest 'find' for

>>political reasons?? Dubya's trump card = terror.

>>I also liked how Ridge gave Shrub a plug in his

>announcement,

>>"This would not have happen with out his strong leadership...

>

>>And cooperation with all our allies, Pakistan". Wasn't it

>>reported that Pakistan was pressured to produce a big arrest

>>during the DNC?

>

>How come nobdoy who "thinks" like glutes - or BoN, or

>Trilingual, or Ignoto, or RickMunroe, or any other similar

>types who post here - got to speak at the Democratic National

>Convention (or, if they were given 3 mintues, were required

>not to say what they think)?

>

>How come nobody at the entire convention, at least during any

>important hours, said:

>

>* The war in Iraq was fought for Halliburton's profits

>* The Bush Administration creates fake alerts to scare people

>* Bush is stupid

>* Dick Cheney and Karl Rove really run the Government

>* Bush officials committed crimes by leaking Valerie Plame's

>identity

>* The war in Iraq was wrong and shouldn't have been fought

>* We shouldn't fight wars without UN approval

>* Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen

>* Bush authorized torture in Guantanomo and Abu Grahib

>* The Bush Administration is planning concentration camps for

>gays in the second term

>* The Bush Administraiton is an illegal junta that came to

>power in a coup

>* Bush is planning to implement terrorist attacks on the U.S.

>shortly before the election in order to win

>

>Shouldn't the American people know about all of this?

>Shouldn't the Democrats be talking about these important

>things during their convention, when they have the attenion of

>the entire country?

>

>How come none of the bad, corrupt things done by the Bush

>Administration which I've been reading about on this Board for

>the last 2 years were even mentioned - let alone featured - at

>the Democratic Convention?

>

>Doesn't this tell you just how freakish, embarrassing, and

>ridiculous you are? Even your own party feels a need to hide

>you and the psychologically disturbed dribble that oozes out

>of your mouth.

Actually, our party choose to take the high road and stick to relevent issues, rather than personal attacks. They choose to be honorable, rather than spread lies.

Too bad Bush doesn't know how to do that. He stole an election, lied to the US people, the Congress and the UN. He sent thousands of young boys and girls over there purely for his own agenda.

Mean while, the man who is responsible for 9/11, Bin Ladden, is probably sitting on a Polenisian island drinking Mai Tai's. Why hasn't your Bush savior mentioned anything about him??? Why are all our troops in Iraq when they should be going after the people responsible for 9/11.

There are close to 1,000 Americans dead from the Iraqi War and God only knows how many innocent Iraqis. So yes, we are critical of the man who insisted to go it alone. The same man who used his father's wealth and influence to avoid the draft, the same man who doesn't have any of his family in the service.

He is probably the worst President in US history. His Domestic agenda is non-existant, he has done anything other than Iraq. Are we better with Bush? Are the Iraqis? No, they have a new Dictator now complete with an appointed puppet Gov.'t who will continue to allow Bush to pump all that oil out of that country.

>>The current Administration exploit this latest 'find' for

>>political reasons?? Dubya's trump card = terror.

>>I also liked how Ridge gave Shrub a plug in his

>announcement,

>>"This would not have happen with out his strong leadership...

>

>>And cooperation with all our allies, Pakistan". Wasn't it

>>reported that Pakistan was pressured to produce a big arrest

>>during the DNC?

>

>How come nobdoy who "thinks" like glutes - or BoN, or

>Trilingual, or Ignoto, or RickMunroe, or any other similar

>types who post here - got to speak at the Democratic National

>Convention (or, if they were given 3 mintues, were required

>not to say what they think)?

>

>How come nobody at the entire convention, at least during any

>important hours, said:

>

>* The war in Iraq was fought for Halliburton's profits

>* The Bush Administration creates fake alerts to scare people

>* Bush is stupid

>* Dick Cheney and Karl Rove really run the Government

>* Bush officials committed crimes by leaking Valerie Plame's

>identity

>* The war in Iraq was wrong and shouldn't have been fought

>* We shouldn't fight wars without UN approval

>* Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen

>* Bush authorized torture in Guantanomo and Abu Grahib

>* The Bush Administration is planning concentration camps for

>gays in the second term

>* The Bush Administraiton is an illegal junta that came to

>power in a coup

>* Bush is planning to implement terrorist attacks on the U.S.

>shortly before the election in order to win

>

>Shouldn't the American people know about all of this?

>Shouldn't the Democrats be talking about these important

>things during their convention, when they have the attenion of

>the entire country?

>

>How come none of the bad, corrupt things done by the Bush

>Administration which I've been reading about on this Board for

>the last 2 years were even mentioned - let alone featured - at

>the Democratic Convention?

>

>Doesn't this tell you just how freakish, embarrassing, and

>ridiculous you are? Even your own party feels a need to hide

>you and the psychologically disturbed dribble that oozes out

>of your mouth.

Actually, our party choose to take the high road and stick to relevent issues, rather than personal attacks. They choose to be honorable, rather than spread lies.

Too bad Bush doesn't know how to do that. He stole an election, lied to the US people, the Congress and the UN. He sent thousands of young boys and girls over there purely for his own agenda.

Mean while, the man who is responsible for 9/11, Bin Ladden, is probably sitting on a Polenisian island drinking Mai Tai's. Why hasn't your Bush savior mentioned anything about him??? Why are all our troops in Iraq when they should be going after the people responsible for 9/11.

There are close to 1,000 Americans dead from the Iraqi War and God only knows how many innocent Iraqis. So yes, we are critical of the man who insisted to go it alone. The same man who used his father's wealth and influence to avoid the draft, the same man who doesn't have any of his family in the service.

He is probably the worst President in US history. His Domestic agenda is non-existant, he has done anything other than Iraq. Are we better with Bush? Are the Iraqis? No, they have a new Dictator now complete with an appointed puppet Gov.'t who will continue to allow Bush to pump all that oil out of that country.

From an appearance by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge on Tuesday at the Citicorp Building in New York:

"Ridge denied there was any political motivation behind raising the terror alert when President Bush and his Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry are neck-and-neck in polls ahead of November's presidential election.

"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," he told reporters. "This is not about politics. It's about confidence in government."

Oh. I guess I misunderstood.