"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
...going to warm up a few huge public crowds for the candidate of his
party, John McPalin?

Haven't seen much of Bush out stumping for McPalin. Dunno why not...he
sure as hell isn't occupied doing anything else.

Where are you, Dubya?

People like you obama, and in wall street advisers have made it impossible
for John McCain to use President Bush as a reference, because everything
President Bush has done has been spun in a negative light.

We can thank President Bush for being there when we need a person with
common sense.

His common sense was there for 911.

uh, yeah. A lot of talk and then half ass the chase for Bin Ladin followed
by invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The focus
was Iraq, and 9/11 was the excuse.
About that "other" war that has become just a sidebar for not just the
administration and the media, but also the American people; this is from an
interview with GWB by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post in August 2003:
"We've got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major
combat operations," [Bush] said. "And they're there to provide security and
they're there to provide reconstruction help. But both those functions are
being gradually replaced by other troops. Germany, for example, is now
providing the troops for ISAF [International Security Assistance Force],
which is the security force for Afghanistan, under NATO control. In other
words, more and more coalition forces and friends are beginning to carry a
lot of the burden in Afghanistan."
MILBANK (continuing directly): In fact, the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan
represent the highest number of U.S. soldiers in the country since the war
there began. By the time the Taliban government had been vanquished in
December 2001, U.S. troops numbered fewer than 3,000 in Afghanistan. And
three months later, in March 2002, when the last major battle against
remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda took place in eastern Afghanistan,
about 5,000 U.S. troops were in the country.
So, in case it's unclear, we sent 3,000 troops after the scum that attacked
us at home during the early tough months. By comparison, Reagan sent 7,000
to Granada.
The Bush machine sent 192,000 troops, accompanied by 40 some thousand Brits
and a few thousands from "Coalition of the Willing" countries to invade
Iraq.
So, why on earth did he send 64 times (or 6,400 percent) more troops to the
wrong war than after Al Queda?
Some brilliant stratigic plan to start a war in the wrong place and hope the
bad guys show up?
Common sense? Incompetence? Or indifference?
You figure it out.

Can you imagine gore's response.

Maybe he'd have gone after the right target?

He was there for New Orleans. The governments in the area refused to admit
they had a problem and ask for assistance from the Federal government. You
blamed President Bush for not responding fast enough. It is the law that
the federal government can not come into the state without their
permission. 150 years ago, we fought a war over states rights.

Maybe ask the people in NO what they think about his response instead of
forming your own opinion?

He realized what was necessary to lower gas prices. He remove the ban
placed in effect by bill clinton and the price of oil drop from over
140/br to less that 70/br.

So, he lowered gas prices by destroying the world economy? I agree he was
just a part of this catastrophy, but your the one that claimed the
"victory".

He realized what was necessary in the current financial crisis and again
did the right thing. The democrats in congress, tried to do not anything
as usual, and the crisis got worse. Now they have supported President
Bush, the market is starting to respond.

Yeah, it'll be fixed in a couple of weeks. Some plan- give 3/4 of a trillion
dollars his treasury idiot with no more of a plan than to dole out to the
banks that largely caused all this crap.

You must have a hell of a sense of humor!