I put little stock in pre-election promises. They are all fluff, only serving to get the wanker elected.

Bush has a 3 1/2 year record to judge.

Kerry has a 20 year record to judge.

I disagree with Bush on many points, but Kerry's senate record is indefensible. He has always voted for higher taxes, less security, no tort reform. His legislative agenda is a careful balance between extreme liberal ideology and pandering to entitlement groups. He cannot even bring himself to attend critical security counsel meetings after 9/11. He wants the US to have a "Global Test" of approval before taking action. To borrow a Kerry phrase, he is "The wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Sherwood, a simple question for ya; Did Saddam wholeheartedly support international terrorism?

No link between 9/11 and Saddam is needed. The problem is that most liberals are too naive to realise that the war on terror is a global war, not a war against Al Qaeda only. In a post 9/11 era we cannot afford to take the chance that the intelligence might be wrong. You also refuse to acknowledge that most of the civilized world believed Saddam had these weapons, how could the intelligence been considered suspect at that time when so many sources said he had weapons? If I where President I would never take a chance by not acting, inaction is still a choice and it is a wrong one.

Are you suggesting that Kerry can tell the future? That he wouldn't have attacked Iraq because he somehow knew we wouldn't find weapons? If so was he so strong for military action in Iraq in the years leading up to the democratic primaries? Maybe Howard Dean can see the future and told him there where no weapons? I'm sure there was a debate in the WH prior to the war and the President must weigh ALL of his advisors positions and make a choice based on what they tell him as well as his own assessment of the situation. The decision to invade Iraq was a good one for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. Both countries supported terrorists and both Bush and Kerry have vowed to hunt down the terrorists wherever they may be hinding. Nations that support terror are just as guilty as the terrorists and like it or not by any real definition Saddam was a terrorist sponsor making him a terrorist himself.

As for N. Korea and Iran, I'm not suggesting force at this time, John Kerry is. He is totally hypocritical in this regard, he wanted more diplomacy in Iraq after over a decade of sanctions and resolutions did not work to stop Saddam. The UN's own oil for food program effectively gave Saddam the money to offer $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Don't kid yourself, Saddam was NOT contained, he was actively supporting terror as well as inflicting terror on his own people and if the pressure on him would have eased he'd have increased his efforts. John Kerry suggests the President is not doing enough to deal with Iran and N. Korea yet the President is doing EXACTLY what Kerry wanted him to do with Iraq. Bush is actively engaged in multi-lateral talks with NK, has helped put sanctions an world pressure on both countries, the only way to get tougher like John Kerry suggests would be military action. I don't want that, no one does but the President correctly won't take that possibility off the table. Let's think about that for a moment. Bush threatened the Taliban with military force and they didn't comply, we went in and killed or captured those leaders. He threatened military action in Iraq and Saddam did not comply, we captured him, killed his sons and either killed or captured a majority of his supporters. If things in NK or Iran deteriorate Bush will threaten military action and based on his past record he WILL do it. Do you think the leaders of those countries really want to suffer the same fate as the Taliban and Saddam? Right now Iran is actively engaged in supporting the insurgency in Iraq, if sanctions and diplomacy do not work to stop this behavior our ONLY choice will be airstrikes and possibly a full scale invasion. My hope is that it won't come to that even though I believe it is inevitable for whoever is the next President, my worry is that Kerry won't act until it's too late.

Let's face the facts here, no war has ever gone exactly as planned and ye we have made mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion but just because things aren't going perfectly now doesn't mean Bush and his advisors don't have a plan to correct the problems and stop the insurgency. They are being careful however to work with the Iraqi leadership to solve these problems without resorting to blowing up holy sites or thousands of innocent Iraqi's in the process. We will succeed as long a we have an optomistic and strong leader like Bush in command. Kerry's pessimism will only make things worse and his waivering positions will not help our allies morale. We will lose support for our efforts if Kerry gets elected and none of the liberals want to admit that.

We have Bushs record to go on:
Lower taxes for the top 2%, millions of jobs lost, 9/11, the war in Iraq, the 1000 dead untold wounded US Soldiers, the untold dead and wounded Iraqis, walking away from the Kyoto Accord, his awful record in the enviroment, blocking stem cell research, under funding the No Child Left Behind, letting the Ass.weapons ban lasp. etc.
And his lies.

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company."_ Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to_his 2003 financial disclosure form,_Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC",_a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales."
Does he even know how to read his own tax return?

Seems you libs always forget the President gave everyone a tax cut. YOu also forget that the top 2% pay the majority of the taxes something like 80%, a tax cut won't be effective if you only cut taxes for the other 20% or so. And what about the millions who dropped off the taxes altogether. Net job loss is actually around 800,000, not bad when you consider how bad things could have been after Clinton's recession and 9/11. The war in Iraq, still the right decision. The Kyoto Accord, flawed. He only blocked embryonic stem cell research so that one life wouldn't be lost to save another, a tough decision. Underfunding No Child Left Behind? Education has seen a 58% increase in funding, underfunding is your spinmasters opinion. Assault weapons ban, that's a good one, the libs would have you beleive we can buy fully automatic weapons when in fact we cannot. The previously banned weapons were all semi-automatic. What lies? Show me PROOF he lied. It is not a lie to cite the information you have available to you at the time. Bush's timber company? I can't even tell you all the names of the companies I "own" as part of my 401k and other retirement and investment plans of the top of my head. Besides I have to assume that timber company does have at least a few employees. The point Bush was trying to make is that small businesses are the largest creator of new jobs in this country and raising there taxes would stifle that growth.

Talk to me about Kerry's lies, distortions, flip-flopping, horrible senate record, his sketchy accounts of his "heroism". Real heros never seem to advertise it. He says he won't raise taxes yet his senate record points to exactly the opposite. Kerry is a spineless, waivering opportunist who believes he deserves to be President yet after 20 years in DC he's done nothing presidential at all.

Christian,
To reply to your statements:

No link between 9/11 and Saddam is needed. The problem is that most liberals are too naive to realise that the war on terror is a global war, not a war against Al Qaeda only.
After 9/11, it was prudent to go after the terrorist org. that was responsible, not conduct a global war. After 9/11, maybe we should have invaded the Philipines for terrorists. That's global and a hell of a lot smaller than Iraq.
--------
In a post 9/11 era we cannot afford to take the chance that the intelligence might be wrong.
What does that mean? You get intelligence reports from several sources. You cross check for validity, then say screw it? If you can't rely on intelligence and other verifiable sources to tell you what's happening, you're deciding a course of action by a hunch, a feeling and what amounts to a flip of the coin. That sounds a little impetuous doesn't it?
--------
You also refuse to acknowledge that most of the civilized world believed Saddam had these weapons, how could the intelligence been considered suspect at that time when so many sources said he had weapons?
If there was verifiable proof Saddam had WMDs, we would have had more global support. How do you know what other countries believed? What were the sources linking Saddam with WMDs? Here's a site that tells us the number of coalition forces in Iraq (as of 7/04). It looks like these troop numbers correlate with their belief in this war.
--------
If I where President I would never take a chance by not acting, inaction is still a choice and it is a wrong one.
Does this mean if you were in charge, you would attack Iran and South Korea say, tomorrow? World situations are seldom black and white issues. Inaction doesn't necessarily mean "not attacking".
-------
Are you suggesting that Kerry can tell the future? That he wouldn't have attacked Iraq because he somehow knew we wouldn't find weapons? If so was he so strong for military action in Iraq in the years leading up to the democratic primaries? Maybe Howard Dean can see the future and told him there where no weapons? I'm sure there was a debate in the WH prior to the war and the President must weigh ALL of his advisors positions and make a choice based on what they tell him as well as his own assessment of the situation.
No one can predict the future. A wiser person would have looked for solid proof of their existence before starting a war. There was none. Invading Iraq was Bush's idea and he listened only to a few in his administration (Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rice, those closest to him) who were in favor or went along with it. Other voices were not allowed access, most prominantly Sec. of State Powell, the person with the most experience in Iraq, what with Cheney and Rumsfield running interference for GW. Who else is there in the cabinet who has access to the president? The Chiefs of Staff were under orders as soldiers and not seen as advisors. We know GW didn't listen to other world leaders.
--------
The decision to invade Iraq was a good one for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. Both countries supported terrorists and both Bush and Kerry have vowed to hunt down the terrorists wherever they may be hinding. Nations that support terror are just as guilty as the terrorists and like it or not by any real definition Saddam was a terrorist sponsor making him a terrorist himself.
Good reason is subjective. There are 60 countries that have terrorist orgs. in them. Not all of these countries support terrorism. Attack them all? Let's keep track: 58 to go.
---------
As for N. Korea and Iran, I'm not suggesting force at this time, John Kerry is.
Not sure what your stance is. You say better not take a chance our intell is wrong; attacking Iraq was justified for the same reasons we went to Afghanistan. Then you equivocate with N. Korea and Iran who admit to having WMDs. What's the difference between Iraq and these two countries? According to your Saddam premise, we should declare war and attack.
--------
He is totally hypocritical in this regard, he wanted more diplomacy in Iraq after over a decade of sanctions and resolutions did not work to stop Saddam. The UN's own oil for food program effectively gave Saddam the money to offer $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Don't kid yourself, Saddam was NOT contained, he was actively supporting terror as well as inflicting terror on his own people and if the pressure on him would have eased he'd have increased his efforts.
These were not the rationale before we went to war. GW and company warned the world Iraq was an imminent danger; he had WMDs and planned to use them. The world body concluded there was no verifiable evidence of WMDs. There's still no evidence. Maybe Halliburton will find the evidence.

The administration offered other reasons for attacking after WMDs were not found. GW could have made a case before the UN based on these other reasons. He didn't, instead he used the dubious WMD claim and listed the other reasons post-war to rationalize attacking.
--------
John Kerry suggests the President is not doing enough to deal with Iran and N. Korea yet the President is doing EXACTLY what Kerry wanted him to do with Iraq. Bush is actively engaged in multi-lateral talks with NK, has helped put sanctions an world pressure on both countries, the only way to get tougher like John Kerry suggests would be military action. I don't want that, no one does but the President correctly won't take that possibility off the table.
So you disagree with GW here. Didn't you say we should attack them too because we can't rely on our intelligence.
--------
Let's think about that for a moment. Bush threatened the Taliban with military force and they didn't comply, we went in and killed or captured those leaders. He threatened military action in Iraq and Saddam did not comply, we captured him, killed his sons and either killed or captured a majority of his supporters. If things in NK or Iran deteriorate Bush will threaten military action and based on his past record he WILL do it. Do you think the leaders of those countries really want to suffer the same fate as the Taliban and Saddam?
So we declare war on Iran and N. Korea. That leaves 56 countries left to declare war.
--------
Right now Iran is actively engaged in supporting the insurgency in Iraq, if sanctions and diplomacy do not work to stop this behavior our ONLY choice will be airstrikes and possibly a full scale invasion. My hope is that it won't come to that even though I believe it is inevitable for whoever is the next President, my worry is that Kerry won't act until it's too late.
We're suppose to be fighting those responsible for 9/11. I suspect GW will also declare war on entire countries. I realize you don't see a difference. Do you enjoy holy wars?
---------
Let's face the facts here, no war has ever gone exactly as planned and ye we have made mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion but just because things aren't going perfectly now doesn't mean Bush and his advisors don't have a plan to correct the problems and stop the insurgency.
Tell that to GW who, if he recognized any mis-steps, hasn't admitted it yet. I appreciate your acknowledging events in hindsight. However, it's the prez who should and he hasn't or won't. That's the worrisome part. Isn't his plan, "Stay the course"?
-------
They are being careful however to work with the Iraqi leadership to solve these problems without resorting to blowing up holy sites or thousands of innocent Iraqi's in the process. We will succeed as long a we have an optomistic and strong leader like Bush in command. Kerry's pessimism will only make things worse and his waivering positions will not help our allies morale. We will lose support for our efforts if Kerry gets elected and none of the liberals want to admit that.
GW's plan in Iraq was limited and flawed and his long term vision is myopic. We are seeing the result of that. It's not going well and his version of "spreading freedom" is not comforting. Whoever is president the next four years will have a tough time extricating the US out of Iraq. IMHO, to follow GWs battle cry is not the wise move. However, if people think it is, I guess they'll vote Bush/Cheney.

Respectfully,
Sherwood

Try reading the book "Blowback" , it came out in 1999. Pretty much Bush has done every mistake in foreign policy he could. He has no idea how, what, where the world works so he blunders ahead "staying the course".
Great, he is the poster boy for terrorist recuiting as his policys inflame most of the world especially the Islamics.
The US isn't so strong that it can take on the rest of the world.

Geoff

translate: conservatives tend to be realistic, liberals tend to be naive

Sherman, a counter reply but I won't do the whole quote thing again it's just too long. I believe that after 9/11 it was prudent to go after Al Qaeda AS WELL AS other terrorist organizations with intention of harming the US and it allies. Questions two and three are similar. The UN security council acknowledged Saddam had a weapons program. Israeli (one of the best intelligence services in the world), British, Russian, along with our own intelligence and some of the Arab nations all believed he had weapons. If youi remember correctly the arguement at the UN before the war was not whether or not he had weapons, it was whether or not we should use force to remove them. The UN passed a resolution stating force could be used but when the President went back to the UN for another resolution directly authorizing force he didn't get it. It's rather telling that the countries who were complicit in the Oil for Food bribery scandal where the ones who threatened a veto. Saddam bribed them and they voted against us, yet they never stated he didn't have weapons, only let the inspectors have more time. As far as acting, we had already been through more than a decade of resolutions, sanctions and diplomacy and Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the world, the time had come to take action. As for proof before acting, we had proof that Al Qaeda would attack the US because they did in 1993 at the trade center. As well as the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. 9/11 was proof they would attack, should we have waited for Saddam to sponsor some terrorists to attack us before attacking him. Bush is using a policy that the best defense is a strong offense, we had proof that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds how where we to know he wouldn't do the same against us? Imminent threat? The President never said that those are JOHN EDWARDS words when he explained his vote for the use of force. If John Jerry and John Edwards are so much wiser why then, without the proof you desire did they authorize force? Those two say the President rushed us to war, so did they but they won't tell you that. I do not agree with Bush's position on Iran and NK, I'm simply stating that he is using global pressure, sanctions and diplomacy to try and solve the problem which is exactly what John Kerry is saying NOW that he should have done in Iraq. How can Kerry say we didn't use enough diplomacy in Iraq and then suggest we aren't being tough enough on Iran and NK. Kerry is trying to have it both ways and it won't work. If the current efforts don't work then force may be neccessary but as a last resort, just like it was a last resort in Iraq. (I know you don't think it was a last resort in Iraq, it's a difference of opinion both sides have). The President's plan is very clear, go after the terrorists wherever they may be and go after regimes that actively support them. The war on terrorism is exactly what it's name implies. A war against Al Qaeda only will leave us vurnerable to attacks from many other terrorist organizations. As for missteps, no candidate will ever recognize mistakes during a campaign, his word would be taken out of context and used against him as soundbytes by his opponent. The President during Friday's debate recognized that mistakes where made militarily but wisely wouldn't expand on the issue. As fo battle cry, John Kerry doesn't have one nor does he have a plan, he has changed his position so many times that I can't trust anything he says won't be different next week.

We attacked Afghanistan because they were harboring Osama Bin Ladin immediately after the 9/11 attacks. It was the right thing to do, and that is why all of our allies, (and most of the Arab world even), supported us. Bush, however, never content to succeed at anything, dropped the ball and focused most of our resources on Iraq, which most of the developed world and several of our key allies opposed, most likely because they knew that Saddam had nothing to do w/ our "terrorism/security" problem.

Yes, Saddam hated the U.S. and the Bush Family, and he hated Jews and sent a death benefit ($$) to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So what?? Him and every other Arab in the M.E. Just because they cheered on 9/11 doesn't mean that they were behind it. In their dreams, maybe. The U.S. is hated in the M.E., and w/o holding a history class for Republicans here, let's just say that it has it's basis in historical events. Not apologising or rationalising for them, but live in reality, folks. When Bush preached to the ignorant, (his base), after 9/11, and said that "they attacked us because they hate our freedom", (or something equally inane), he was lying through his teeth.

Either that, or he is far too stupid to be in charge. (This gets my vote).

To lump the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq together, as though they were for the same reason, (the absolute bull***** 'war on terror'), :rolleyes: , is the height of ignorance and/or dishonesty. It is well documented by former cabinet members, and never disputed by the White House, that Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq well before 9/11. He then cynically played the public's emotions and fears after 9/11 in order to "bundle together" the Iraq threat, (a joke), w/ OBL and Al Quaeda.

He is an incompetent, unqualified leader, an absolute empty suit who the right wing desparately wants to keep in power. Where in the fuch are they ever going to find another one like him, who will cut billionare's taxes, (a lot), during a time of war, record deficits, and economic stagnation?? When energy prices are seeing record increases, largely due to the instability of the oil supply caused by his own policies?? When every city, state, munincipality and school board in the country is going to gush red ink this winter paying for oil/diesel fuel/ gasoline/etc...??

At least the people in the oil business down in Texas are having a great year, or this would be an all-around tragedy. :rolleyes:

One last thing: Whenever a Democrat, like Kerry, votes against a tax break for billionares or corporations who offshore factories in the Senate, that counts as a "vote to raise taxes" in Dick Cheney world. In Karl Rove's lie machine, that never sleeps. That is how a guy can get re-elected several times when the Repubs want you to believe that all he ever did was go to work every day and raise your taxes. A steaming pile of horse*****, but what do you expect from them.

There is plenty more, but this is a start. Free your mind, Bush is not good news for anyone, unless you are a "dead-ender", someone who owns a factory that is about to move offshore or an oil exec that will profit from America's decline. :cool:

Just to jog foggy memories, I won't repeat all the quotes from the administration on this subject. Here's just a portion of the long list of quotes from our administration. www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

"The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements."

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

............ and a bunch more.

...... or the above never happened.

Sherwood

I love it when libs talk about oil and the ME, try doing a search and see where the US actually gets it's oil from. Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico are big on this list other large importers include Russia, Columbia and Norway. Also approximately 30% of US oil production comes from the Gulf of Mexico and we had to suspend much of that production during the brutal hurricanes recently. Oil is priced high right now not due to demand or the ME it's due to oil speculation on the world markets, most economists will tell you there is at least $10 per barrel of and cost because of speculation. The liberals will have you believe that the US relies solel on the ME for oil and that is just a flat lie that too many Americans choose to believe.

....and as far as the Iraq/Al Quiada (Bin Laden) link:

Wolfowitz Backs Off al-Quida - Iraq Link
_
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's No. 2 official, Paul Wolfowitz, is backtracking from a public claim that associates of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden are trying to link up with Saddam Hussein loyalists to attack Americans.

In the past, Wolfowitz made the claim that al-Quaida were in Iraq, this was one of the reasons for the US to attack Iraq. Now he is framing his argument in a different more understandable way. Here are some of his new assertions to clear up the matter................ (http://www.tribalmessenger.org/headlines/9-12-03-wolfowitz-and-al-queda.htm)

Sherwood
PS. Wolfowitz said that in '03. It has since been verified.

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
 

Speeder:

"Saddam had nothing to do w/ our "terrorism/security" problem."

2002, John Edwards tell CNN’s Late Edition:

“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”


October 9, 2002 JOHN KERRY, ON THE SENATE FLOOR:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

"I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security


Speeder; your order is up . . .. a big juicy Flip-Flop Burger, with a side of Liberal Hypocrisy. http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/.../cheeburga.gif

So you're giving kerry and Edwards a pass on saying the very same things before they changed their mind about Iraq and then changed it again to their current position?

Both Bush and Kerry believe the biggest danger to the US will be WMD in the hands of terrorists, Kerry revised his stance during the debates to just nuclear but they both agree in principal on the threat.

You cannot change the fact that both Kerry and Edwards made the right choice at the time based on the same intelligence to authorize war with Iraq. Now Kerry says "Wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" Well John which is it? Now that we have found no weapons Bush still backs up his decision because it was at the time the right decision and because left unchecked Saddam would have reinstituted his weapons programs.

Clinton cut back the intelligence services of this country during his administration, this was due to the "peace dividend" and at the time made some sense, I won't fault him for that. However those cutbacks and restrictions were partially responsible for our not knowing the threat that would become reality on 9/11 and they were responsible in part for our faulty intelligence on Iraq. What Bush needs to do now is fix the problem, we need better intelligence now than we had during the height of the Cold War because this enemy is spread widely around the world. Some of these fixes wil be made public and obviously others will not. The Patriot act and the Homeland Security department were steps in this direction but there is still much work to be done. I don't believe Kerry will continue the work and our security will suffer.

As for some of the other statements made above I guess libs believe that only Al Qaeda is a threat to the US. I hope your naive beliefs don't get more Americans killed.

Island, I love it!

I love all you guys!

As for some of the other statements made above I guess libs believe that only Al Qaeda is a threat to the US. I hope your naive beliefs don't get more Americans killed. [/B][/QUOTE]

My naive beliefs won't get more Americans killed, Bush's ignorance and stupidity will. He has pissed off nearly half the world (Islamics) so my naivity doesn't hold a candle to him.
I think you neo-cons are just as naive and have your head in the sand if you think you can chase down all the terrorists.
If we work with the rest of the world on this it might have a chance.

"There is no I in TEAM"

Geoff

Hmmm, on the week following September 11, 2001, I remember that AT LEAST half of the worlds "Islamics" were celebrating . .. partying-it-up.


Yeah, it was Bush who pissed-em off.:rolleyes: