Put simply, the administration has been too wrong too frequently on Iraq to expect Congress to give them a free hand. Congress has to stick around and clean up whatever new problems Bush manages to create there, while he goes back to cutting brush.

"Bush team tells Congress: Keep hands off Iraq talks"

Yeah, you can't tell a little dictator wannabe what to do or he's going to go crying to his Uncle Darth Cheney.

The most unbelievable thing about Prez Chimpy's Presidency is the fact that he hasn't been impeached.

-Spying on Americans
-Starting a Pre-emptive, Uncalled for War
-Torturing Prisoners
-Operating Secret Prisons
-Lying to Congress
-Ignoring Pre-9/11 Waringings

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!

Put simply, this administration has been the only administration of late to stand up to these nuts. Thank God we have a president with some guts for a change. Personally I don't care to be terrorized, unlike others!

To the Democratic Congress:

Get some you know what's and cut off the funding.

Don't let these NUTS do any more damage.

Why isn't he in jail yet?

Don't know what she's bellyaching to Bush about, she voted for his war.

Didn't the Queen B, and Barack Obama for that matter, say at a Dem debate that they saw troops still in Iraq come 2013?
Anyway, this is just another move by the Dems and their willing accomplices in the media to take what is turning into a success and make it a failure. Why do the Dems and the media want defeat in Iraq and victory for Al Qaeda and terrorists in general? Simply put, the Left (Dems and media) favor the terrorists, especially against the U.S. and Bush administration. The Left wants terrorists freed and Americans killed. That truth is as plain as John E's stupidity and derangement.

This one is nearly unbelievable. This is a treaty. It should be ratified by the US Senate.

Well, the unitary executive just got stronger. Enjoy the power President (fill in the blank).

Mike you are terrorizing yourself. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being the victim of a terrorist act. Are you gonna stop going outside now? Then why are you surrendering your Constitutional Rights?

Put simply, this administration has been the only administration of late to stand up to these nuts. Thank God we have a president with some guts for a change. Personally I don't care to be terrorized, unlike others!

Posted by: Mike | February 13, 2008 2:53 PM

No one actually cares to be terrorized, so you're really not all that unique.

Unlike many others, though, you choose to be scared of an attack, which is pretty much what it means to be terrorized. Stay in your room, keep your trusty firearm at your side, and Dear Leader will protect you from harm, coward.

This is what happens when Jr. finds daddy's car keys, he crashes into a wall and leaves a twisted heap of scrap metal. Lord help whoever has to fix this mess.

Thank God we have a president with some guts for a change. Personally I don't care to be terrorized, unlike others!

Posted by: Mike | February 13, 2008 2:53 PM

Be scared little Mikey, be really, really SCARED!

Osama could be hiding out back behind your house right now for all we know, you rememer him, right? the guy your nutty Prez said he wanted "dead or alive"...

http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi145.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr205%2Fstraighttotheghetto%2Fosama_waldo2.jpg&searchTerm=wheres%20osama&pageOffset=0

Don't "cut and run", Mike!

If we had followed the Democrates we would have surrendered by now. Losers.

GW, knows what we face in this world and he took action.

All the dimbrains that post here seem to want to judge actions based on today.

GW had to deal with the issue from the point of time that it was what was necessary to act, and he did. Not easy, but the right thing to do.

GW has put us on the offense and we are better off for that.

We don't need the surrender nuts screwing it up now.

Why do the Dems and the media want defeat in Iraq and victory for Al Qaeda and terrorists in general? Simply put, the Left (Dems and media) favor the terrorists, especially against the U.S. and Bush administration. The Left wants terrorists freed and Americans killed. That truth is as plain as John E's stupidity and derangement.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 3:17 PM

Johnny SquarePants,

Why don't you tell the Swamp gang what excatly "victory in Iraq" means, who's going to pay for it and how long will it take?

The Sunni's and Shiites have been fighting for over 1300 years, you moron.

John E,

You sound like the moron, what is your point in the post above? For that matter what is your point ever? You just call people names and demonstrate your ignorance, over and over and over...

I think it is the most important question today is-

Why do the dems want us to lose ?? and why would any american want to side with the surrender party.

We don't need the surrender nuts screwing it up now.

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 3:41 PM

Surrender to who?
This mis-administration already admitted that Al-Qaeda already only accounts for 2% of the overall violence in Iraq and they weren't in Iraq before Prez Decider Guy decided to pre-emptivaly invade.

Why do the dems want us to lose ?? and why would any american want to side with the surrender party.

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

Joe:

You wingers love to talk in terms of victory and surrender, black and white.

So answer the question that's been asked thousands of times by now: how would you define "victory" for the U.S. in Iraq?

I don't expect an answer, of course, but maybe Joe will surprise us.

mcpirate,

What is your point?

Bush did the right thing in Iraq.

The war is against terror, not al -qaeda.

Does anyone know history out there?

Why did Columbus and Europe desire an alternative route to Asia?

Islamic beheadings and terror is what drove that effort.

This is the most critical battle of all human history, we don't need ignorant liberals lying and deceiving us about the history and reasons and events that lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

joe, Mike and John D,

When are you three toughguy wannabe's going to shut your pieholes and sign up to fight in the great upcoming "victory in Iraq"?

Typical Repubs, all talk, no action...

Joe-

Yes the European methods of execution were so much more civilized and humane at the time of Columbus than the Muslim ones.

Drawing and quartering and burning at the stake are really the hallmarks of advanced civilizations.

And look at what we've done for Iraq on the execution front since we took over. No more nasty beheadings, no siree. Now they hang those who are executed, and the head becomes separated from the body only some of the time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16629656/

Now that's progress!

mcpirate,
What is your point?
Bush did the right thing in Iraq.
The war is against terror, not al -qaeda.
Does anyone know history out there?

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 4:37 PM

holy joe,
I think the question is, What's your point?

If you really believe that this so-called "War on Terror" or whatever you Wingnuts call it these days, is such a great crusade, then shut up and sign up for it.

Stay the Course, freakboy..

Luke,

You forgot evisceration ala Brave-heart. Wind those intestines up like string on a kite, yeah baby.

Luke,

So you equate islamic slauter of christians and jews with the justice system in Europe.

You just can't fix Stupid.

joe, Mike and John D,

When are you three toughguy wannabe's going to shut your pieholes and sign up to fight in the great upcoming "victory in Iraq"?

Typical Repubs, all talk, no action...
Posted by: Dr Strangelove | February 13, 2008 4:48 PM

Common,

That is an argument position of a fool ...

Have at it, you're ready.

It's a war against terror. I guess we would surrender to an adjective.

'Joe' has apparently swallowed the whole misconception sideways.

Joe, what about fearing a right wing dictatorship, right here in America?

Joe-

And you ignore the Christian slaughter of Jews and Muslims altogether.

Try reading a book sometime, moron. Start with one on the Crusades.

Joe, what about fearing a right wing dictatorship, right here in America?

Posted by: C.Morris | February 13, 2008 5:14 PM

What are you talking about? Another example of how poorly you lefties think.

You just can't fix stupid!

Common,

That is an argument position of a fool ...

Have at it, you're ready.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 5:13 PM

I recognize all the words but when arranged in that order and punctuation I'm not sure they mean anything.

The point, anon, is that if the war is important enough for any of us to die in, it should be important enough for all of us to die in. And first in line should be those who actually claim that it's an important war. Cowards like Joe, John D ("my back hurts") and Mike show through their inaction that the war against an adjective (C.MO') is not worth much to them.

--

Still waiting for an answer to my question @4:22, Hose A.

a blinkin,

You are just wrong in how you think.

This is adult stuff, way over your head...

Thankfully we have a president that was willing to do what needed to be done. Go on the offensive.

History will CONTINUE to show how wrong the left is.

What are you talking about? Another example of how poorly you lefties think.
You just can't fix stupid!

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 5:20 PM

No, actually were talking about an example of how poorly you righty fascists think.
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

You're right, you just CAN'T fix stupid and that's also why you should never look in the mirror.

Still waiting for an answer to my question @4:22, Hose A.

Posted by: a blinkin | February 13, 2008 5:24 PM

I am not doing your thinking for you, I know how hard it is for you but I am sure in a few years you'll get it.

That's why we have Bush working on it instead of a dingbat like you.

Joe,

Check out the 'Spanish Conquest' of the so called New World.

Xtians are so 'kinder and gentler'.

Why did Columbus and Europe desire an alternative route to Asia?

Islamic beheadings and terror is what drove that effort.

This is the most critical battle of all human history, we don't need ignorant liberals lying and deceiving us about the history and reasons and events that lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 4:37 PM

Unbelievable. Now I have heard everything. Have you ever picked up a legitimate history book or are you just one of those beer-guzzling, bar flies that spout off at the mouth without killing any brain cells?

Columbus looked for another route to India, not America, to get at the gold and spices for Spain before the other greedy European powers could. That's why Native Americans were called Indians, because in his attempt to circumnavigate the world to prove it was NOT FLAT, he theorized that by sailing west, he would reach India by water rather than by the treacherous land route of Marco Polo and others. What Columbus didn't count on is a land mass in between (The Americas).

AGAIN, AGAIN. IRAQ never attacked us; Al-Qaeda was not permitted in Iraq under Hussein until we attacked Iraq for no reason. WE should have gone after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Bush/Cheney needed to fulfill their promises to Halliburton and the other oil/industrial/war complex who put them in office and are lining GEB/DC pockets -the money waiting for them when they leave office.

The lives of 4,000 of our finest young people have been sacrificed for a pseudo-war. And by the way, Islam has been a religion since the 7th century. Research the history of war and you will find that most major wars and modern-day terrorism are predominated by Europe and the West's attempts to impose their imperialistic agendas on third world nations.

Read a little; it helps

Class is over; go back to fantasyland

No, actually were talking about an example of how poorly you righty fascists think.
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

You're right, you just CAN'T fix stupid and that's also why you should never look in the mirror.

Posted by: mcpirate | February 13, 2008 5:36 PM

YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS CRAP

You just can't fix stupid.

I see McCain voted in favor of torture. What a hypocrite.

I am not doing your thinking for you, I know how hard it is for you but I am sure in a few years you'll get it.
That's why we have Bush working on it instead of a dingbat like you.

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 5:37 PM

You're not doing any "thinking" at all, you're just following along in lockstep with the marching orders that your Wingnut overlords gave you.

Yeah, we have alot of confidence in you and your Republican Prez 24%, I mean, you've been so "successful" so far...BwaHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No one is interested in signing up for your holy war, in fact we're still waiting for you to back up your talk and sign up for it yourself.

Send us a letter and let us know how well you're doing in Iraq after you sign up, we'll be sure to send you a goodie box from home. I'll even buy a yellow "support joe" magnet sticker to put on my truck.

Joe @5:37

In other words, your intelligence capacity is limited to whatever can fit on a bumpersticker. No wonder you admire Bush so --compared to you he's a genius.

"BUSH SPEAKS"

I THOUGHT MY IMMUNITY WAS A DONE DEAL AND I SIGNED THAT STIMULUS PACKAGE FOR THOSE SELF DESERVING AMERICANS WHO WANT ME TO END MY QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ.

HOW DARE YOU AMERICA, I'M THE DECIDER AND MY DADDY TOLD ME WHAT I SAY GO! THIS IS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND WHAT I SAY GO!

HOW DARE AMERICA ASK FOR MORE "CONGRESSIONAL CHURN" ON MY WATCH. HOW DARE AMERICANS WAKE UP AND EXPECT THEIR FREEDOMS TO BE STILL THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN LIFE.

HOW DARE CONGRESS ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE MY "AUGMENTATION" OF A WAR.

HOW DARE CONGRESS ATTEMPT MORE OVERSIGHT ON MY EAVESDROPPING PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS IN 2001. HOW DARE CONGRESS TAKE MONEY FROM AT&T AND VERIZON WIRELESS AND STILL HOPE TO HAVE OVERSIGHT ON THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES WE EMBRACED THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN.

HOW DARE AMERICA THINK THAT MY "EVIL DOERS" EMPIRE AND AXIS OF EVIL WITHIN MY STAFFERS BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING, AND I MEAN ANYTHING.

STOP THE PRESS, STOP THE PRESS, THE HOUSE DID WHAT?
MADAME SPEAKER LET HER HOUSE DO WHAT?

NOT GIVE ME REPRIEVE AND RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY TO A CRIME COMMITTED ON AMERICAN SOIL. WHAT IS THAT. FORGET IRAQ, THAT'S JUST A STEPPING STONE FOR DUBAI DICK, I NEED MY IMMUNITY AND I NEED IT BEFORE FEBRUARY 15TH.

OTHERWISE, WELL EXXON MAY HAVE TO DIP INTO THAT 40 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT AND HELP OUT AT&T AND VERIZON WIRELESS WITH ALL THOSE DOMESTIC SPYING SUITS.

SO WHAT IF THEY AREN'T TERRORIST, THEY ARE AMERICANS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO VOTE AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHO IS VOTING FOR WHOM AND WHEN.

GET "SKYWATCH" OR RUDY GIULIANI ON THE LINE. THIS IS MADNESS, I'M THE COMMANDER GUY AND WHY AM I BEGGING.

OKAY, LETS LET SOME DIRT OUT ON SOMEONE KARL. NEWS CORP HELP!

Blinkin, victory in Iraq is a stable government. Victory in Iraq is when the terrorists have largely given up taking Iraq for themselves. That is occurring. The Iraqi government is actually making strides at reconciliation among the factions. The government does consist of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Do they have a ways to go yet? Sure. Are they making strides? Yes. Violence is down, way down in fact. That is a positive development too.
But to the point, victory in Iraq is that there is a stable, democratic, sane government; one that is not run by terrorists nor aid and assist terrorists.

Personally I don't care to be terrorized, unlike others!
____________________________
Me neither, and come January 2009, my terrorists will be a bitter memory.

I think it is the most important question today is-
_____________________________
I think the most important question today is, when are the wide-stanced, xenophobic busheviks going to stop relying on tired old cliches to repeat endlessly the same tired old arguments they have been tossing like pillows at reality for years?

The Dems should have acted on impeachment.

They seem to be trying to run out the clock, hoping for not too much more damage, but it looks like the 'gas gangrene' of TeamBush is going to carry the day.

As I have said before, America jumped off the cliff in November '04.

"In these negotiations, we seek to set the basic parameters for the U.S. presence in Iraq, including the appropriate authorities and jurisdiction necessary to operate effectively and to carry out essential missions, such as helping the Iraqi government fight al-Qaeda, develop its security forces, and stem the flow of lethal weapons and training from Iran. In addition, we seek to establish a basic framework for a strong relationship with Iraq, reflecting our shared political, economic, cultural and security interests."

vs.

trea•ty (trt) n. pl. trea•ties 1. a. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade. b. The document in which such an agreement is set down.

I don't see a difference. Except for that pesky congressional oversight required by the constitution. But this administration has never held that document in high regard.

Joe,

Bush is right wing, and he is dictating to the Senate. Ergo; a right wing dictatorship.

Yeah, Bush is working on it...working hard. It's hard work being the decider and making the decisions a decider makes. Like deciding which laws to ignore and what illegal actions the decider can get away with without getting impeached. Like violating the law and spying on people without a warrant. Or deciding who we should torture and how we should torture them. Or ignoring the constitution which requires the senate to ratify treaties with other countries.

"The war is against terror and not Al-Queda"? You deserve a medal of freedom for that one Joe! If you have trouble fighting terror, I can understand why you wouldn't want to sign up with the army. I'll bet you could find a doctor who'd prescribe something to help you with that. As for me, I'm not so afraid that I'm willing to grant unlimited power to the president, so that means I've already won.

"Blinkin, victory in Iraq is a stable government. Victory in Iraq is when the terrorists have largely given up taking Iraq for themselves. That is occurring. The Iraqi government is actually making strides at reconciliation among the factions. The government does consist of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Do they have a ways to go yet? Sure. Are they making strides? Yes. Violence is down, way down in fact. That is a positive development too.
But to the point, victory in Iraq is that there is a stable, democratic, sane government; one that is not run by terrorists nor aid and assist terrorists.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM"

Great news, John D;

Eventually Iraq will get back to status-quo pre US invasion under Saddam.

The Left wants terrorists freed and Americans killed.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 3:17 PM

Not true. We just want you to stop smoking CRACK!!!

Swamper's,

Quit arguing with GI joe, he knows he's wrong and he's talking in circles, the guy just want's someone to pay attention to him.

He reminds me of someone who usually posts on here under other post names....hmmmmmm.

Blinkin, victory in Iraq is a stable government. Victory in Iraq is when the terrorists have largely given up taking Iraq for themselves. That is occurring. The Iraqi government is actually making strides at reconciliation among the factions. The government does consist of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Do they have a ways to go yet? Sure. Are they making strides? Yes. Violence is down, way down in fact. That is a positive development too.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM"

That's great news, Crazy Joe D.

Now that we've won in Iraq I guess that also means we can bring our troops home too, huh?

Joe,

Bush is right wing, and he is dictating to the Senate. Ergo; a right wing dictatorship.

Posted by: C.Morris | February 13, 2008 6:54 PM

Cute Morris, Cute- now go back to the little kids table and let the adults deal with the big people stuff.

Joe,

Check out the 'Spanish Conquest' of the so called New World.

Xtians are so 'kinder and gentler'.

Posted by: C.Morris | February 13, 2008 5:42 PM

Yeh C Morris, and is see that there is a lot of these spanish people attaching schools in Russia and slaughtering hundreds including shooting little kids in the back.

And I know that they are into filming beheadings of journalists.

Your support of these people, our enemy, is disgusting.

You can't fix stupid.

Joe,
I see you couldn't rebut my statements.

Bush, the stupidest man to ever hold the office of President, is destroying America and all you and Anon can do is quote Rush Limburger's talking points.

Morris,

a clue.

Joe = Crazy John D

Oh Lenin, er John E., er Loon, er Dr. Strangelove, er mcpirate, I do not need to post as anyone else. Joe is Joe and I am me.

By the way Loons, Iraq still needs our help, just as Japan did for seven years following WWII and Germany as well.

And far as Iraq "returning to the Saddam Hussein days" with stability is that why Clinton bombed Iraq year after year? Is that why Tom Daschle and the rest of the Dem Senate brigade said we "need regime change" in Iraq in 1998? So, when Hussein was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers that was a good thing?

I know, I know, I am upsetting the Loons' weird, distorted surreal world withg facts and common sense and history!

Blinkin, victory in Iraq is a stable government. Victory in Iraq is when the terrorists have largely given up taking Iraq for themselves. That is occurring. The Iraqi government is actually making strides at reconciliation among the factions. The government does consist of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Do they have a ways to go yet? Sure. Are they making strides? Yes. Violence is down, way down in fact. That is a positive development too.
But to the point, victory in Iraq is that there is a stable, democratic, sane government; one that is not run by terrorists nor aid and assist terrorists.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. You've conceded that troop withdrawal would not constitute "surrender" or anything of the sort.

As TheReamer @7:08 indicates, Iraq was stable under Saddam.

Even Commander Flightsuit would not start a war just to maintain the status quo. So there must have been a different objective than stability.

We have either already blown that objective or we have already achieved it. Either way, it is a thing of the past. Nothing we do will affect the prior failure or achievement -- no act or omission on our part.

That includes troop withdrawal.

If you can accept the above, then perhaps you'll agree that it's not accurate -- much less appropriate -- to accuse your fellow citizens of wanting to lose the war. Dear Leader and his Bootlicker McCain put that in the bag years ago.

Blinkin, victory in Iraq is a stable government. Victory in Iraq is when the terrorists have largely given up taking Iraq for themselves. That is occurring. The Iraqi government is actually making strides at reconciliation among the factions. The government does consist of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Do they have a ways to go yet? Sure. Are they making strides? Yes. Violence is down, way down in fact. That is a positive development too.
But to the point, victory in Iraq is that there is a stable, democratic, sane government; one that is not run by terrorists nor aid and assist terrorists.

Posted by: John D | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. You've conceded that troop withdrawal would not constitute "surrender" or anything of the sort.

As TheReamer @7:08 indicates, Iraq was stable under Saddam.

Even Commander Flightsuit would not start a war just to maintain the status quo. So there must have been a different objective than stability.

We have either already blown that objective or we have already achieved it. Either way, it is a thing of the past. Nothing we do will affect the prior failure or achievement -- no act or omission on our part.

That includes troop withdrawal.

If you can accept the above, then perhaps you'll agree that it's not accurate -- much less appropriate -- to accuse your fellow citizens of wanting to lose the war. Dear Leader and his Bootlicker McCain put that in the bag years ago.

Why do the dems want us to lose ?? and why would any american want to side with the surrender party.

Posted by: joe | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

Nobody wants to lose. The question is what is best for the United States. What is victory? is a valid question. One that republicans can't seem to answer. I fully admit this is a different kind of war. It was easier when there were actual nations to surrnder, i.e. Japan, Germany, etc. But that is the problem you conservatives don't seem to understand. There is no one to surrender to us, and we have nothing to claim victory about. A simple reduction in violence, which has spiked up again, by the way, over the last month, is not "victory". What we should have done, was used all our resources to quickly and effectively destroy AlQaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan when we had the chance. But Bush was to "buddy-buddy" with Musharraf and his oil interests. Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where the actual highjackers were from. O.K., we helped removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, but AlQaeda is still strong. And has gotten stronger because of the failed policy in Iraq. Invading Iraq has emboldened AlQaeda and given them a larger ground to run around in. Bush couldn't have done them a bigger favor than taking out Sadaam, who wanted no part of AlQaeda in Iraq. The invasion also put Iran in a much stronger position in the region. Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies, which kept both countries "in check". Some might claim Iraq's so-called elections are a victory. But for who? They were not "free" because the Bush administration only allowed his hand-picked candidates. What happens when Iraq picks a leader like Ahmadinejad? Iran has free elections and they picked a far right-wing radical. And notice I say "when" not "if". This is an inevitability. What it comes down to is this was an invasion for no valid reason, with no valid solutions, and complete negligence in its planning.

David J

Wrong, you should pay more attention to the leaders of the party- Look what polosi tried to do on the Turkish history issue. It was absolutly an effort to help drive a wedge between Us and Turkey and effect the war - If you don't see that you are a lier or a fool.

As for what is victory - it isn't that victory in Iraq hasn't been defined over and over again it's just that you imbecilic hatefully people on the left just don't get it!

Those last six words should be this years conservitives montra...

YOU JUST CAN'T FIX STUPID

Joe has it right, but more needs to be said. It is not just the oil war and the incompetent manner it was planned and dishonest way it was started. There are 20,000 terrorists in camps that our troops have capture at the point of a rifle. When has dumbo ever mentioned doing anything with them? Never. Let us see what are his options: let them all go, keep them for ever at US tax payer's expense, hang them (the only one I find acceptable) or do nothing and let a better woman or man deal with them. He will take D because he has no guts and there is no oil at stake. Today the terorists in Lebenon at haveing a death to America rally with hundreds of thousands in the streets. Where are our B-52's and the daisy cutters to wipe out the whole lot in a single day? No guts and his handlers did not scantion it. Mc Cain will be more of thr same, wave the flag and bury our dead. He just might meet a few at the airport comming home. That is more than Bush has ever done. And more than we should be needing to do. Impeach Bush, End the war. Or fight it seriously.

I'm in agreeance with JOE. We need too elimanate the libertarian, and the Canadians, who want to invade us. Also, down with the UN!

THen we need to recognise the reel heros! And by them I DON"T mean the UNION cops and fire department!

JOE, you are so right! YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID! JUST ELIMINATE IT!

JOE and JohnD has it right! Canada, UN want too INVADE us. YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID so eliminate it! Liberaltarins ARE THE ENEMYof the US.

JOE for president, maybe Terry to.

Go USA.