Comments on: Bush Never Recovered From Katrina

Advisors Say The President "Broke His Bond With The Public," "It Was The Final Nail In The Coffin"

[usadvisor101]

RowdynTex....This is for you.

|^^^^^^^^^^^||____
| The **** Truck |||""''''''''|""__,_
| _____________ l||__|__|__|)
|(@)@)"""""""**|(@)(@)**|

(@)

Posted by scotch41 at 05:19 PM : Dec 30, 2008


LOL. Beautiful.

Posted by harbinger09 at 05:24 PM : Dec 30, 2008


perfect for both texass failures

[voultron]

mccain08nc is correct.

Both Blair and Bush share equally in the stupidity of pushing their country into invading Iraq, a nation that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the events on 09/11/01.

But wait, there''s more....Bush kept doing stupid things throughout his tenure in office. The Bush/Cheney blunders, failures and missed opportunities will be duly recorded in American history, no matter how hard the Bush Gang attempts to revise or recreate past events.

Folks, we have just witnessed almost eight years of the worst presidential administration in modern American history. Such a waste!

[surreal64]

Bush never recovered from being born.

[idnnsg]

"why if we attacked for now reason why was Hussein put on trial and hung for his crimes. Just a petty thought" -- mccain08nc

Yes, it''s VERY petty! And, totally misguided and irrelevant!

Uh, WHO ran that trial? Did you even hear any of the charges, or hear any of the defense? Was it a fair trial? And, most important: do you not understand that one country can NOT just invade another country and put its leader "on trial" and execute him just because THEY say "he''s a bad man"?

[harbinger09]

Rowdy,
I understand from Dallas real estate agents that the Bush''''s will be your next door neighbors. You must really be some rich evangelical who has no job except to post on CBS sites 24 hrs a day. You are doing a good job of being the proapganda minister for your new neighbors.

Posted by endrepubs at 05:26 PM : Dec 30, 2008


We believe that Rowdy is a trailer park dweller who lies a lot. Given that, at best, she may be allowed to pick up the dogshittt from the Bush terriers but that is about as close to TT as the Bush''s are likely to want to get--then again, she may help in the lines that help to pick up the shoes that are continually lobbed onto the Bush driveway.

[idnnsg]

jdavidlove1 asks, "He "broke his bond with the public"? What does that even mean?"

It means:

1. He promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" and he did the opposite every day of his term.

2. He promised to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and then HE became one of those enemies by violating the Constitution (4th ammendment) and by violating International Treaties which have the force of US law and by decimating our armed forces and by bankrupting our country.

3. He FAILED to protect and defend our country on 9/11/2001, even though he was warned in advance, and then he illegally invaded and attacked a country that posed no danger to us.

4. He promised to rebuild New Orleans, then did not... but when his brother''s state (FL) got hit by a hurricane, the money flowed in immediately!

In EVERY WAY you can imagine, BUSH has broken his bond with the people of this nation, preferring to serve Darth Cheney and the International Oil Companies instead.

And this information isn''t coming from some partisan democrat. No, it''s the republican head of his 2004 presidential campaign who says Bush "broke his bond with the people".

Bush: WORST PRESIDENT OF THE US EVER, bar none.

[harbinger09]

One more question for why if we attacked for now reason why was Hussein put on trial and hung for his crimes. Just a petty thought.

Have a good one enjoyed it.

Posted by mccain08nc at 05:11 PM : Dec 30, 2008


Hussein had a lot of enemies and was executed by the puppet regime we put in power. Did he deserve execution? Probably. Was the court unbiased? No. A kangaroo court? Probably. A sham? Yes. Would or should Hussein have faced a trial at the Hague--yes--if his country was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (they were not)

Speaking about the actions of one war criminal does not justify the actions of another. Whether Bush is ever tried or not--many (including myself) will continue to hold and believe that he is probably guilty of war crimes including the wilful slaughter of citizens in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan (though the Afghani killings may be justifiable)

[harbinger09]

RowdynTex....This is for you.

|^^^^^^^^^^^||____
| The **** Truck |||""''''|""__,_
| _____________ l||__|__|__|)
|(@)@)"""""""**|(@)(@)**|
(@)

Posted by scotch41 at 05:19 PM : Dec 30, 2008


LOL. Beautiful.

[harbinger09]

part 2

Bush may not be charged now--but he could face charges if Iraq ever gets control of their own country. Even then, whoever is charged must be extradicted or found outside the country that is shielding them. That means if Bush or Rummy or Cheney or someone else named left the US--they could be taken to the Hague. Will this happen in the future? No one knows.

Certainly it could--just like a Black man could become President of the US. ONly time will tell.

Hope this helps McCain08 understand what the Hague is and how the tribunal works. LMAO

[harbinger09]

Again. for the LAST time, the Hague is NOT a person, the Hague cannot arrest anyone. Countries have to submit charges and then those people must be caught outside the US and remanded over to the Hague for trial. It is just a city and within that city a series of court houses. For Bush to be sent to the Hague or Blair to be sent to the Hague, a country must bring them up on charges. After they have been charged (and several charges are already pending on American citizens about the Iraq war, including Rumsfeld) then those citizens still cannot be arrested unless their host country extradicts them and allows them to be sent to the Hague. Only then can a court convene. The most credible country to bring charges usually is aggrieved. This would mean that Afghanistan or Iraq would bring charges OR other countries whose citizens were harmed can try to bring charges though they are less compelling than a country. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are still under American occupation and therefore are not able to bring charges without risk--but there is no statute of limitations on war crimes--see next post

[merlgrey]

a few years ago a good buddy got his heart broken by a little hottie named katrina. one could say he never recovered from katrina''s bush.

[harbinger09]

But what happened to this Hague thing you don''''t think if he had evidence against bush that same evidence wouldn''''t convict Blair since his troops were invading Iraq side by side with our troops.

How is Blair not a war criminal in this hague thing and Bush is. I am sure Britain used its own inteligance to declair war. Please explain it to all of us.

Posted by mccain08nc at 04:56 PM : Dec 30, 2008


Who is he? The Hague is not a person, it is a city in Holland. What do you mean this Hague thing? The Hague is the place where the international court is located, *** are you yammering about--and why go after Blair when we are the ones who initiated war?

[jdavidlove]

He "broke his bond with the public"? What does that even mean? The wall that the army corp of engineers said was safe broke, and the place flooded. The people "in charge" of an emergency of that magnitude failed. What does this have to do with President Bush? Are you saying he didn''t speak to the public quickly enough? I don''t understand what this story is hoping to convey. There is no useful information here.

[jdavidlove]

He "broke his bond with the public"? What does that even mean? The wall that the army corp of engineers said was safe broke, and the place flooded. The people "in charge" of an emergency of that magnitude failed. What does this have to do with President Bush? Are you saying he didn''t speak to the public quickly enough? I don''t understand what this story is hoping to convey. There is no useful information here.

[harbinger09]

So you saying these courts are going say well Bush you killed first we going to try you, and all the other leaders get a free pass. You really aren''''t that inteligant are you.

Do you think if you with a buddy and he killed someone and you assisted you wouldn''''t be arrested. You libs are true morons when it comes to this topic.



Posted by mccain08nc at 04:52 PM : Dec 30, 2008


Now I remember you. You are that ignorant person who thought McCain was going to win and continually tried to pretend to have intelligent dialog with me--until I realized that your ignorance was not wilful but congenital and under no circumstances subject to improvement. Now that I know who you are--play with Rowdy--you both are of the same ilk, trying to dialog with you is like trying to swim in concrete a veritable waste of time, and energy--I won''t mention brain cells because for one of us, that is a moot point. And the word is intelligent, not intelligant. LOL

[harbinger09]

eah, Slownewsbitch #whatever, aka Harbinger 09...you gonna meet at the Hague when they bring up Bush, Tony Blair, and the 539 Congressmen and women who legalized the war up on charges? Possibly Australia, and every other country that sent troops there?

Posted by RowdynTex at 04:59 PM : Dec 30, 2008


I would not meet at the Hague, but I would follow any televised proceedings closely and am pretty certain that most of the world would applaud convictions--that way, we can avoid future countries attacking others based on a hunch and some lies.

[harbinger09]

No you said there was this global court that was ready to bring charges and Bush threatened an air raid why have they not arrested Blair.


Posted by mccain08nc at 04:48 PM : Dec 30, 2008


Why are you fixated on Blair--Blair did not start the war, he just participated in it as did many countries--Blair is also not an American citizen. The Iraq war is a US war--in as much as Blair or the UK can cite their allied/NATO pact for coming to the assistance of the US in a time of war--they honored their miltary agreements and abided by international law--it is America that committed an act of unprecipitated aggression against a country that had done nothing to them. Even in WWII, those countries of the Axis all had invaded and precipitated unprovoked war--in the case of Iraq, America did it unilaterally.

[harbinger09]

---

Do you think our congress will bring any charges against bush?
Posted by mccain08nc at 04:50 PM : Dec 30, 2008


No. I don''t think our Congress will bring charges against Bush--not because Bush is not guilty--but because many of them are complicit and would get into trouble also. I also believe that given the revelation of Bush wiretapping since 2002, we can surmize the following:

1. The Congress cannot implicate Bush without implicating themselves

2. Bush has info on a lot of them, so they dare not speak out

3. Having given Bush immunity, to undermine it now would undermine Congress

4. Due to the voilatility of the country and the state of the economy, the Congress dare not address this issue due to fear of a backlash from some voters and further division in this country.

Do these factors mean Bush is innocent of war crimes? No--but it does point out our Congress lack the ballz and moral authority to actually hand Bush and his cohorts over to the Hague and let Iraq and the International community decide their guilt or innocence--and that is too bad. For waterboarding and the war lies alone, Bush and co should face charges.

[harbinger09]

Well, it seems like he''''s not enjoying it now, is he?

And it seems like McCain got the majority of the military votes in the election!

DUH!

Posted by RowdynTex at 04:44 PM : Dec 30, 2008


You presuppose, Rowdy---that we actually believe your post or the scientific quality of any data (if it were true) But that is a fantastic leap of faith given your lack of credibility on these blogs.

[harbinger09]

You never answered the question why is Tony Blair wondering around a free man his army went into Iraq right along side ours.

Doesn''''t give you much hope for your trumped charges does it when Blair has been out of office for 2 years and still is a free man.


Posted by mccain08nc at 04:47 PM : Dec 30, 2008


No one other than the British can answer why Blair is a free man and due to the fact that many countries became complicit in Iraq due to Bush''s bullying and telling them they would get no contracts and go on America''s ***** list--odds are that the only country and people to be held culpable for that invasion are US citizens. After all, we started it all, those who joined in just played along.