[Fledermaus]

It doesn't matter. Bush isn't going to to anything to Iran OR Syria in an "election year".

Funny, I thought he was a leader and a different man for the job.

Instead, he's nothing but a typical entrenched politician only caring about his ego, his job, his mention in the history books.

And Kerry would be worse exactly how? I'm not voting for him, but I still can't find a reason to vote for Bush other than I don't want Kerry. I'm getting tired of choosing between two worthless candidates.

Go ahead, flame me! I don't care. The GOP has turned into the Democratic party because they want to protect their power. When the argument against a Dem is "they'll spend even MORE worthless money on pork projects", the argument to elect the Republican becomes moot.

Just look how the GOP "establishment" backs Arlen Specter this year. Even Rick "should be in a" Santorum, a normally conservative man, backs Specter over Toomey! What a crock of s**t.

We need to develop a viable conservative party and quit cowering on the margins.

But it's not going to happen and so more and more people will stop voting GOP and staying home while the Dems keep feeding their attack dogs red meat, get out the union vote and money stolen from members with no accountability, and eventually take it all back and make it even worse.

Oh wait? Worse? Hard to see how these days as long as the GOP is morphing into the Democrats. If the Dems were smart now, they'd write off their left wing and go back to the DLC middle and move to the right.

They'd be in office another 50 years.

[pt17]

It doesn't matter. Bush isn't going to to anything to Iran OR Syria in an "election year".

Consider the possibility that GWB doesn't have the (CIA type of) intelligence to do anything to either country right now, regardless of any election. Also, having come up short with no WMD, he isn't going to get much support for doing anything overtly. I think the real problem is the Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs. They, and not their countries, need to be visited in the middle of the night for some frank discussions.

[F14 Pilot]

I can understand your feelings over this and appreciate but I disagree with you on some parts of the comment you wrote above:
Yes, Bush looks for power and office as any other politician does the same. But remember, Bush won't do any thing in the election year, yes you are right. But what will Dems do if they get the office?
Bush has to be careful about his ego, his office and power because he will not be able to help any one if he loses his seat in the oval office.

[endthematrix]

"Bush isn't going to to anything to Iran OR Syria in an "election year". "

Uh, remember Congress? When did the US need a WMD excuse to invade Iraq anyway? As for Iran, the US should have kicked the crap out of the Ayatollah and restored the Shah.

As for you getting a clue to elitism in both parties, congrats. Don't split off and get disenfranchised with fighting the good fight and work with those who are the best for the job AT HAND, which is liquidating the terrorists.

[ought-six]

"If the Dems were smart now, they'd write off their left wing and go back to the DLC middle and move to the right.
They'd be in office another 50 years."

Shhhhhhhushhhh...be quiet. They might be listening.

[Godfollow]

No flames... your sentiments are quite understandable. It's beginning to look like what the middle east needs to keep it under control is an evil tyrant. We may have shot ourselves in the foot by removing him. Sometimes I think our Western values are only valid in our part of the world, and genocide really is to be considered where lunatic humanity is concerned. Nevertheless, I'll be voting for GW.

[VMI70]

I'm sorry to say that I share your sentiments.

Regarding the Middle East: People can't seem to grasp the fact that most Middle Easterners have no sense of "country" like we do. Their allegiances are to tribes, families, religion, and sects, not necessarily in that order. It has been that way since the beginning. That is why we will never be successful in transforming them into something civilized, unless maybe you've got a couple of thousand years to work on it. Assuming that is correct, which, of course, it is, then why bother prolonging the agony.

Yesterday, a poster opined that the way to hasten the inevitable, is to remove the strictures on Israel. They have no illusions, as GWB and his minions apparently do, about the canard that Islam is the "religion of peace".

I agree with him.

The Israelies aren't sweet smelling either, but I think we can deal with them in a civilized manner.

[BraveMan]

Bump this article and Freeper insights . . .

My pleasure, RC.

Landru, I thought you might enjoy Fledermaus' comments on this thread.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Such crap isn't worthy of a flaming. Maybe some sparking.

[beachn4fun]

It doesn't matter. Bush isn't going to to anything to Iran OR Syria in an "election year". Funny, I thought he was a leader and a different man for the job. Instead, he's nothing but a typical entrenched politician only caring about his ego, his job, his mention in the history books.

Can you please provide your source for this statement? If this is only your opinion, please state so at the beginning. Your opinion may be misleading to others on the thread to believe this is factual. IMO, just because the President might choose to handle one battle at a time, doesn't make him just a "typical entrenched politician only caring about....."

[TShaunK]

I couldn't agree more if I wrote the post myself...I wish Pat Buchanan was running.Your exactley right.

[MEGoody]

It doesn't matter. Bush isn't going to to anything to Iran OR Syria in an "election year".

We are already at war on two fronts. Are you suggesting we institute the draft so that we can wage war on a couple more at the same time? I'm not saying I'm opposed to that, just saying we don't have the resources as things now stand.