How Far Would YOU Go To Make President Bush Look Bad??

LOL Now, before you post something like, "But he's doing such a GOOD job on his own!" consider this. I used to joke about how the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by a few select people, to make up for Al Gores 2000 campaign loss. This, of course, was in response to the many anti-Bush chatters I used to encounter in AOLs various political chatrooms, but in all honestly, it was just a simple comeback for what I thought was a simple swipe at Bush...

...BUT...

Given the time to think about it, why couldn't this actually happen?? There are those who blame Al Queda, or the Iraqis...hell, blame the whole Arab world! Then there are those who blame Bush. "Asleep at the switch" is one of the kinder things said about Bush by that bunch.

But...where's the conspiracies that lay blame on a jealous, vindictive, downright pissed about the loss, competition? And before you comback with, "Democrats are above that!!", consider this:

Everyone brings up Operation Northwoods. Do they mention it was hatched by the CIA, during the Kennedy Administration? Of course not!




[edit on 9-4-2006 by Toelint]

Yea because Kennedy is the one that told them to go to hell. Vietnam would be a better slam to democrats Kennedy started it, Johnson escalated it.

Back to topic
I would sneek up on Bush while he was giving a speech and give him a roman helmet.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by DiRtYDeViL]

Err how far would I go to make Bush look bad? I think he does that well enough himself .

I'd press the 'ON' button on the TV.

He seems to do well enough from there.

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Err how far would I go to make Bush look bad? I think he does that well enough himself

.

NO FAIR! Reread the very first line in the first box...but I DO love the "Roman Helmut" idea!

This seems apt for this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Think about it.

This really is a conspiracy imo, THEY are playing ALL of you. AND FEW SEE IT!!!!!

Originally posted by intrepid
Think about it.

This really is a conspiracy imo, THEY are playing ALL of you. AND FEW SEE IT!!!!!

Yep, a two-sided coin that "rolls" on the same edge. Picture it. Regardless of which side it "lands" on, it's still the same "coin".

A rather vague attempt at visualization, but I think the point rings true.

Hey, Intreped...BRAVO! An excellent thread. If you want help finding facts and connecting the dots, let me know.

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Yea because Kennedy is the one that told them to go to hell. Vietnam would be a better slam to democrats Kennedy started it, Johnson escalated it.

Back to topic
I would sneek up on Bush while he was giving a speech and give him a roman helmet.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by DiRtYDeViL]

I think you meant the Laurel...the Olive Leaves of Caesar.

Don't insult a soldier, by putting a soldiers helmet on Bush.

Or even a little tiny mustache like a ranting fool that caused the Holocaust.

~smiling~

[edit on 9-4-2006 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I think by now most of us know that Dems & Repugs are one in the same.

You only had to pay attention at the last election to see this.

If there is another election ( hmmm) it wont matter a hill of beans, i would just rather it not be any member of the current traveling circus.

Answer: Tamper with his teleprompter?

[edit on 9-4-2006 by dgtempe]

If i wanted to make bush look worse then he allready is i would take away his scripted replies that he tells everyone and then i would throw his earpiece in a fire...Even though niether of these things make him out to know what the hell he is talking about anyway

I would go as far as his former employees. Richard Clarke, John Dean, Colin Powell, I'd love to talk to Paul O'Neil, I would not talk to John Ashcroft
he's a fallen Angel. Any one who was not a yes man was let go or chose to go and several felt compelled to write book. Have you ever seen as many negative books about any sitting President? Or I could just read the paper and see the disaster of the week.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by polanksi]

Wow. what a great response and i totally am in sync with u on that one.

Don't worry SpartanKingLeonidas Bush is a chickenhawk.


[edit on 9/4/06 by JAK]

The day he made his first comments on 9-11 and stated that "We are going to get the FOLKS responsible for this" as though they were good ole boys shooting up a mailbox was the day I knew he was an ass. There is nothing I could possibly do or say that this man hasn't already done to himself. How a man with several failed businesses could even become a governer of a state, much less President of the United States is beyond me.

Hmm I guess I did make him look bad just by saying those things.

LOL if only i could swear on here about what i really think about bush lol........

How Far Would YOU Go To Make President Bush Look Bad??

Goerge W. Bush doesn't need any help to look bad. He does a fine job all by himself!!

The problem is he looks bad allready, but just says "Aw shucks" and his support look the other way. His supporters looked ar Fox news, listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Riely to paint a rosy colored picture for them so they can belive or have an excuse that Bush has really done no wrong.

In fact, recent study shows that Iraq is probly worse off now then it was under Saddam.
cite: www.cbsnews.com...

Only thing that ISN"T worse is that you dont have a Dictator in power that performs Genocide. But now we have a military that does it, and has allready recorded at least 35000 civilian deaths, compared to what Saddam has been charged with (50,000 Kurds) is the country any better off? Not to mtion the money that is now being poured out from the United states, and we have little to show for improvment except for a few elections that have yet to result in any creation of stability in the region?

No, Bush jsut needs to keep digging his whole and hofully he can be facing impeachment in 2007, along with half of the current Executive administration.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
How a man with several failed businesses could even become a governer of a state, much less President of the United States is beyond me.

quoting myself; the benevolent tyrant;
Hey! That's what I like about George W. -- he's no quitter! You can call George W. a lot of things, but you 'gotta admit that he has perserverance. Against all odds. Against all popular opinion and whether he is right or wrong, he single-minded sticks to his original course of action == matter what, it would seem.
We typically, stereotypically admire people who stubbornly, steadfastedly push onward against all odds. That's perserverance. That's what some would call 'principled behavior', that is, acting according to one's sincere beliefs. Why do 'we' hate George W. so? The last time I checked, at every juncture in the war in/on Iraq, the Democrats have always voted in support of the Iraq war through their actions in renewing operational funding for the war in Iraq or in even increasing the economic support for the war in/on Iraq.

While George W. was getting 'dissed and trashed for his support of the sale of several ports to the U.A.E, former President Clinton was, in effect la paid lobbyist for the U.A.E. In the meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was all but calling George W. a traitor.

Read this speech www.findarticles.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">by President Clinton It in essence is agrees with everything that George W. agreed with.


Think....this not an issue of Democrat or Republican and who's right or whose wrong. it really isn't. This is an issue of being controlled as a people as a population as a planet. There is no difference between the Democrats or Republicans......they simply exist to disagree with each other while they both work together to promote one agenda. They are the blue smoke and mirrors tthat serve to distract our attentions. The current political systems in many "democratic" countries simply serve as 'bread' for the people to chew on while they watch the games in the arena. As long we all show up to work the next day, we serve our purpose.

If you don't believe me, watch. If a Democrat is elected into office in '08, the war in Iraq will continue. The Democrats, as an excuse, will simply announce that the difficulties in iraq , a situation inherited from the Republicans , is such that they find that it is currently impossible to withdraw and will, instead, require an escalation.

Both parties seem to be following a script that they , ultimately, follow to attain some goal. How they acheive that goal is immaterial, so it's nothing but a game, a big charade of motorcades and fund-raising lunches and photo-oppotunities with the cub scouts or the M.A.D.D. people or the gold medal winner for the luge or something. Just keep the people glued to their TV sets and the party system has done it's job.









[edit on 4/9/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 4/9/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 4/9/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 4/9/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

Help!!

I think you're ALL missing the point of this thread! Everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) at this site has eaten up at least a little time debating whether or not Bush is or isn't responsible for the position he's in. It's easy to scratch out a list of people who have profited from Bush, just pick up a newspaper.

BUT..Nobody either wants to, or has made a effort to, prove there are those who may have missed out on an oppurtunity to make A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY and gain A GREAT DEAL OF POWER, and so must rectify the situation by making any President who isn't "their boy" look bad...really bad.



Would they level a city block? Start a war? Blow up a levie during a hurricane strike?

Me, I'd just run with that picture of Bush holding up those Speedos

: Originally posted by ThePieMaN
How a man with several failed businesses could even become a governer of a state, much less President of the United States is beyond me.

Well, past failures are only a so-so indicator for future performance. (at least, that's my take on it.) As I recall, Stephen King submitted his first novel Carrie to over SIXTY-ONE publishers and agents before it got picked up. Forty-five books later, he's the richest guy in literary history. Go figure.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Toelint]