George Bush: A Menace To World Peace The media has largely dismissed Bush’s speech before the United Nations as an embarrassment to the country or the makings for a good comedy. Yes, the speech was bad even for Bush. No one was surprised by the outcome when the leaders of the world turned down his request for help in occupying Iraq. Some of the media noted how ironic it was that Bush had denounced the United Nations as irrelevant just a few short months ago now stood before the body like a beggar. Beware of the beggar. From Homer’s time we know beggars can sometimes be Trojan Horses. Odysseus returned home dressed as a beggar. Within a nightfall Penelope’s suitors were slain by the beggar’s hand. The leaders of Europe are playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship by suggesting that if the United States agreed to a joint control, Europe would be willing to send troops.Yes, it is going to take an international effort to rebuild Iraq. Nonetheless, it would be a very foolish move on the part of the international community to offer help as long as the Bush Junta remains in power. Note: the writer does not wish the US troops ill will. But given only the devil’s choice of a limited number of additional deaths in Iraq or the prospect of tens of thousands of deaths in Korea or another country the writer will choose the lesser of the evils. In his best pious pose Bush appeared before the world body for peace seeking to absolve himself of his past criticism of that body. However, at the same time the real news that would reveal Bush as a ruthless sanctimonious tyrant was breaking in another continent. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez Frias was forced to cancel his flight to New York. Venezuela authorities had uncovered a CIA plot to blow up Chavez’s plane en route to his scheduled appearance before the General Assembly. Appearing in a national broadcast Chavez was quoted as saying: "They are conspiring against Venezuela in the United States, the peoples of this continent need to know that their (USA) terrorists are preparing an attack against Venezuela!" This is outrageous conduct for any leader; it is a violation of international law to plot the murder of the leader of another nation. In fact it is paramount to a declaration of war against that nation. Further it is a violation of the Untied Nations’ charter in which the United States guaranteed safe passage for friend and foe alike. However, it is revealing in the ruthless duplicity of the Bush Junta. It is a lesson that must be heeded by the leaders of Europe and not forgotten. No one was surprised last year when Chavez revealed that the United States was behind the coup attempt to oust him from power. Nor was anyone surprised when it became known that United States personnel had an active hand in directing the coup and were present during Chavez’s short-lived captivity. Nevertheless, there is much more to this assassination attempt on Chavez’s life by the Bush Junta. Venezuela authorities have linked the plot to terrorist groups in southern Florida with anti-Castro rebels. One of the plotters of the failed attempt was granted asylum by Bush’s brother Jeb. Thus Bush’s brother is acting as a facilitator in the plot against Chavez. Even more outrageous was the response of the United States Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles S. Shapiro, who says it is not necessarily, "a crime to kill a president." The ambassador further admits that he knows that some Venezuelans have been receiving military training in the United States. Further this information about Venezuelan terrorist training in the United States was published a year ago in a Miami paper but no action has been taken to stop it. What European leaders must understand clearly is that the ambassador has revealed the Bush regime’s foreign policy. You are either for us or again us says the tinhorn tyrant. If you are against us then murder of national leaders is just another option. Assassinations in the past have led to war. To allow such policy to continue in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is a prescription for a nuclear holocaust. Moreover, the Bush regime has confirmed that it has no regard for international law in its unilateral withdrawal from past weapons treaties banning the testing of nuclear devices and has even provided funding to build an assembly line type plant to produce nuclear bomb cores by the thousands should the madman deem it necessary for "U.S. national security." Appearing before the United Nations begging for help to carry on his war for oil while at the same time plotting the assassination of a South American President, Bush has demonstrated that he is a menace to world peace. It establishes that the Bush Junta is not serious about rebuilding Iraq or peace in the Mid East. What it really is seeking from Europe is a means to free up some American troops so they can be dispatched elsewhere in a new war. One cannot negotiate with a madman. England and France tried that in Munich in 1938. Negotiating with a madman is fools folly, just ask the Czechs. What the leaders of Europe must understand now is Bush is far more dangerous than Hitler was. Hitler’s war was only on par with the allies and his navy was certainly outclassed by the British and American navies. Unlike Hitler the Bush Junta has a war machine that is far superior to any in the world and he intends on using it to achieve global fascism. Indeed it would take the combined militaries of Europe and Russia to even achieve any means of parity with Bush’s war machine. Venezuela and Chavez are not the only target of this menace to peace. The Bush Junta is already planning on a new aggressive program towards North Korea designed to provoking North Korea into war. The Bush regime is also waiting for opportunities to attack Syria and Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely training grounds for Bush’s war machine like Spain’s Civil War was for Hitler. Neither country was attacked because of the phony war on terrorism both were attacked because of oil and gas. Moreover, once troops from those countries can be freed they will be used in an attack against another country. Wesley Clark says he was informed by defense officials "at the highest level" that the Bush regime has plans in place to attack 7 countries. Just as Hitler’s conquests followed the blueprint he had written Mein Kamf, Bush is following the blue print written by fascist fanatics at the American Enterprise Institute. The PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century has outlined Bush’s aggressive pre-emptive strategy for world conquest. Those hopeful of peace will be dismayed after reading the document. This is the document that describes genome specific bioweapons as a politically useful tool, hinting at the prospect of racial genocide. It is also the document that calls for the militarization of space and complete Untied States dominance of space. The document not only calls for launching attacks from space but the destruction of satellites of other countries that are deemed to be military targets that includes communications and weather satellites. The document further stressed the need for another Pearl Harbor before the strategy could be fully implemented with the acceptance of the American people. Now stop here and reread the goals of the PNAC cabal, let it sink in deep, these men crave for war, for domination of the world. Think deeply on this, ask yourself where do we stop these madmen. Iraq may be the only place to stop this madness. Every nation that desires freedom and democracy must resist the Bush Junta's pressure to participate. The welfare of the world may well rest in the tying down the US army in the soil of Iraq, at least until Bush can be removed from power. The Bush Junta allowed 9-11 to happen. They had been forewarned by almost a dozen nations. When Bush visited the World Trade Organization meeting in Italy the city was first protected by surface to air missiles confirming the Bush regime were aware of possible air attacks by hijacked aircraft. Likewise, Bush was deliberately outside of Washington DC on the morning on 9-11 and had stayed at a motel overnight in which surface to air missile had been put in place on the rooftop. Obviously placing surface to air missiles on rooftops is not part of the ordinary security surrounding a presidential visit. However, it confirms that the Bush regime was well aware of the 9-11 attack ahead of time and had the means to stop it. The stand down by the US Air Force on 9-11 only confirms that the attacks were deliberately allowed to happen. Bush needed his Pearl Harbor. It is standard procedure for the FAA to notify NORAD whenever a flight deviates by more than five miles from its flight path or contact is lost. The FAA rules are quite specific on the point even in cases of doubt contact NORAD immediately so fighters can be sent to intercept the errant aircraft. No fighters were dispatched on 9-11 until it was too late. The Bush Junta claimed there were no fighters available. Does anyone think that the United States Air Force is so short of planes that it left two thirds of the eastern seaboard including the White House unprotected and without air cover? Hell no! Bush needed a Pearl Harbor and he was willingly to sacrifice the lives of 3000 innocent people to get it by following the script written in Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Moreover somewhere between 20-30 of the Bush regime has come from the fascist institute that wrote that document. Note the White House is protected by anti aircraft missiles, that fact was revealed in a 1998 Washington Post article. The White House was never in danger, where is the American press in covering this already published fact. Once that fact is known, the sacrifice becomes even clearer, the White House was protected, the others could be allowed to happen, to enrage the American people to support war without question. Once Bush had his Pearl Harbor he was quick to attack Afghanistan followed quickly by Iraq even though there was not a shred of evidence linking Iraq with the 9-11 attack. His aides Powell and Rice have been heard on tapes from 2001 saying that Iraq lacked the power to project its conventional forces in the area and lacked any weapons of mass destruction. In fact Powell was downright chirppy about the matter claiming it was proof that the US sanctions were working. Bush’s willingness to wage war before negotiations has had a chance was amply demonstrated in how quick he invaded Afghanistan following 9-11 and again in how quick he invaded Iraq once Afghanistan had fallen. It is again evident in the new aggressive policy his regime is applying to North Korea. It is a policy of forcing North Korea to start a war to protect itself. Nothing could be more dangerous. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the West Coast. It’s a game of nuclear brinkmanship and we are the pawns. Moreover, engaging North Korea in war is an exceeding dangerous proposition. Such a war has the potential to quickly escalate into a global war with China coming to the aid of her neighbor. It is doubly dangerous with the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict. There will be no winner then even in Europe as a cloud of radioactive fallout spreads around the globe rendering life as we know it impossible. There is no doubt that the madman in North Korea would use nuclear bombs. Likewise there is no doubt that the madman in Washington would use nuclear bombs. He considered using nuclear bombs in Afghanistan under the euphemism of tactical nuclear weapons or bunker busting bombs. There is no such weapon as a tactical nuclear weapon. All nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and a means to terrorize a country and its populace. Bush’s vindictive nature and his means of extracting revenge know no bounds. He has demonstrated this in exposing the wife of the Ambassador to Iraq as a CIA agent after the Ambassador revealed the yellow cake story from Nigeria as a hoax. It is also evident in the fact that the CIA is working underground to bring down the current ruling coalition in Germany to a premature end for its refusal to send troops to Iraq. This is a madman that is every bit as psychologically damaged as Hitler was. The leaders of Europe must remain resolute and send no aid or troops to Iraq. Sending troops and aid will only hasten the start of a new war in another country. The only way to contain a madman like Bush is to keep him bottled up in Iraq as the situation there spirals into another Vietnam quagmire. Hitler could have been stopped at Munich. Instead the leaders of France and England engaged in a game of fools folly in trying to negotiate with a madman. Bush can be stopped in Iraq. The leaders of Europe and the world must understand that as long as this menace to peace remains in power there will be another war. Negotiating with a madman like Hitler was fools folly just ask a Czech. Negotiating with a madman like Bush is also fools folly. Hopefully in the last 70 years the world leaders have learned from there past mistakes. Stop Bush in Iraq! Deny him the physical support and financial aid he needs to free up his troops that he needs to start another war. For the details of the Bush family connections to the Nazis click the link to the Nazi Hydra in America below. http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html

Quote:

``There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.'' --Sen. Edward Kennedy on Iraq, Sept. 18, 2003

WASHINGTON-- The Democrats have long been unhinged by this president. They could bear his (Florida-induced) illegitimacy as long as he was weak and seemingly transitional. But when post-9/11 he became a consequential president -- reinventing American foreign policy and dominating the political scene -- they lost it.

Kennedy's statement marks a new stage in losing it: transition to derangement. As such, it merits careful parsing:

(1) Imminent threat? How many times does one have to repeat this: When Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he deliberately denied imminent threat. ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,'' he explained, but this president disagreed. The entire assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is that Sept. 11 taught us that we live in a world where the enemy is too stealthy, his capacity for destruction too great, and the margin for error too small to permit the traditional luxury of waiting for imminence.

Indeed, in the U.N. speech one year ago that launched us on the road to war, Bush spoke not of a ``clear and present danger,'' the traditional formulation of imminence, but of a ``grave and gathering danger,'' an obvious allusion to Churchill's two-decade-long ``gathering storm.''

(2) Texas? A lovely and telling geographic tic, betraying the Massachusetts liberal's regional prejudice. For a president to unleash an unnecessary, cynical war he needs to be as far removed as possible from sanity (Hyannisport?). You head south and west -- to redneck country -- to plan your killings.

(3) Good politically? There are a host of criticisms one might level at Bush's decision to go to war -- that it was arrogant, miscalculated, disdainful of allies, lacking in foresight, perhaps even contrary to just-war principles. I happen not to agree with these criticisms. But they can be reasonably and honorably made. What cannot be reasonably and honorably charged, however, is that Bush went to war for political advantage.

On the contrary, this war was an enormous -- and blindingly obvious -- political risk. It was clear that if America failed either in the conduct of the war itself (a bloody Battle of Baghdad, for example) or in the aftermath (a failure of reconstruction), Bush would be deeply wounded politically.

And indeed he has been. The unsettled outcome and mounting casualties have so damaged his standing that his poll ratings are now at their lowest ever.

A year ago, Bush was riding high. He decided nonetheless to put at risk the great political advantage he had gained as a successful post-9/11 leader -- an advantage made obvious by the Republican gains in last year's elections -- to go after Saddam.

Politically, the war promised nothing but downside. There was no great popular pressure to go to war. Indeed, millions took to the streets to demonstrate against it both at home and abroad. Bush launched the war nonetheless, in spite of the political jeopardy it exposed him to, for the simple reason that he believed, as did Tony Blair, that it had to be done.

You can say he made a misjudgment. You can say he picked the wrong enemy. You can say almost anything about this war, but to say that he fought it for political advantage is absurd. The possibilities for disaster were real and many: house-to-house combat in Baghdad, thousands of possible casualties, a chemical attack on our troops (which is why they were ordered into those dangerously bulky and hot protective suits on the road to Baghdad). We were expecting oil fires, terrorist attacks and all manner of calamities. This is a way to boost political ratings?

Whatever your (and history's) verdict about the war, it is undeniable that it was an act of singular presidential leadership. And more than that, it was an act of political courage. George Bush wagered his presidency on a war he thought necessary for national security -- a war that could very obviously and very easily have been his political undoing. It might yet be.

To accuse Bush of perpetrating a ``fraud'' to go to war for political advantage is not just disgraceful. It so flies in the face of the facts that it can only be said to be unhinged from reality. Kennedy's rant reflects the Democrats' blinding Bush-hatred, and marks its passage from partisanship to pathology.

Premptive slaughter of innocent civilians is always a good policy and will remain so as long as the Empire stands. Now go back down into the cellar where you belong.

Please, tell us again how concerned you are for the Iraqi people.

Just suppose you got your way and the war did not happen.

How many Iraqis would have died under Saddam's continued rule? Rape squads, acid baths, plastic shredders, starvation while palaces are being built, and the other atrocities you and the other no-war types either pretend didn't happen or pervertedly blame the US for.

The Iraqi people are definitely better off without the madman. Every death from the war is tragic and regretable...yet it was a smaller price than allowing Saddam to continue his reign of death.

That you can't admit that is proof you don't give a damn about the Iraqis. All you see is your hatred of Bush.

Non-A's argument equates to:

Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed mercilessly.

Therefore it is justified to go in and kill mercilessly to remove him.

Nice work if you can get it.

And they pay you for this?

My point was (and I didn't think I'd have to spell out something so simple. Guess not), that fewer Iraqis were killed in the war than in allowing Saddam to stay in power.

Lesser-of-two-evils type thing.

Now please explain why you think the Iraqis would have been better off WITH Saddam.

What a threadbare argument.

Now and again, ad nausium, we hear the current parroting rational for war.

Something our bucket of snakes now keep saying as if we have never heard it before

'Saddom what a BAD man, we HAD to do it.”Then, again, as if we didn't know or were somehow misinformed enough to think different, we are told of specifics in his reign of terror. You think the C.I.A.'s main man in Baghdad wouldn't be like the other installed killers they had placed into positions of control after overthrowing a government that was unfriendly to American corporate interests ?

We certainly didn't have to have him put into power in the first place by the Central Intelligence Agency because he had lacked those particular sadistic qualities. And now the fiend we let rule Iraq for decades becomes a convenient handrail to climb.

Unbelievable.

only a moron like yourself could have made a response like that.

Get back into your bucket unless you have something non moronic to say.

Ignore the shills, the traitors, and the panderers.Their only skill is in displaying mendacities and hoping they can fool more people to join their death cult.

"Holy crap! Thay're right! Nobody say anything, and maybe we won't wind up looking TOO bad...

"I'll use some big words and Lefty catchphrases and trot out the tried-and-true 'shills' line. " You guys run and hide!"

...these people aren't interested.

They wouldn't admit Saddam had any WMD if they got their heads dunked in a tub of Sarin stamped "Made in Iraq, 2002".

"No, no...it's just...uh...hair conditioner. Yeah, that's it!" Glub, glub, cough, plop.

Nope, the anti-war group isn't interested in the truth. It conflicts with their widdle feewings.

"Facts? We don' need no steenking FACTS!"

This is exactly what Bush is looking for (from state of the union speech).

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Not some cookbook in an Iragi's scientists back pocket,not an underground den with a few test tubes, not a ice cream wagon with a freezer and a weather balloon, not a couple of stains on a table. I thought the wacko right had no imagination but you nutso's have proven me wrong. Yea and Saddam also had a lot of sand, NO TELLING what he could do with that. LOL.

If Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's as he was accused of having, he should have come out and told everyone he did not AND provided documentation where he had destroyed these things. He should have also allowed the UN to enter anyplace at any time unannounced (including palaces and all military installments). He didn't. He continued to dodge and mislead.

It has been suggested by some that if Saddam Hussein had made it know his military capabilities it would have left the door open for the Iraqi people to overthrow him or a foreign neighbor (i.e. Iran) to realize his weekness and invade. If him releasing such information would have gotten him killed, that's beside the point, he should have come clean and bit the bullet.

It is naive to assume that the Iraqui people could overthrow the revolutionary guards.

But aside from what might have been, the real question for today (as it has been for quite awhile and given the duplicity of the psychopaths in the White House will probably continue on) is when will the pretender bush and his minions come clean on the constant lying, the raiding of the US Treasury and the usury to the corporate overlords, the true reasons for the decimation of the US Constitution, the increased survelliance of the American people, the squandering of an intelligent approach to protecting the environment, and so on. The shills refuse to recognize this obvious departure from the most basic responsibilities of American government, for obviously ulterior motives a la fear and fascist consolidation of American culture. They are sad souls doing the bidding of their false leader, as history repeats itself.

As activists we must continue to protect our Constitution from fascisms ugly overthrow and continue to challenge the maniacal republican death cult.

BTW, the shills are apparently not terribly literate, so if you shills are unfamiliar with a word that I use use a dictionary to learn it and expand your vapid intellect.

Any message that activists hope to deliver are lost in the constant name-calling and over-the-top scare tactics they employ . No reasonable person believes the US is becoming fascist, otherwise the same talk would have been promenent during the Clinton Administration as well, which it was not. No reasonable person believes the country is turning into a corporate plutocracy. No reasonable person believes the government is against environmental issues. No reasonable person believes the government wishes to spy on its own common citizenry but rather those who would conduct terrorists action against our people. All this puts the activists community squarely in the domain of the unreasonable, and that is the way they are being treated and will continue to be treated.

Any reference that those who do not see things as those in the activists community see things are somehow unintelligent or otherwise unwilling to see the truth as defined by the activist community will continue to be viewed as angry rhetoric from those who dislike that they and their views are consistently marginalized.

>>No reasonable person believes the country is turning into a corporate plutocracy>>:

the country is not turning into - it has always been a corporate plutocracy.

>>No reasonable person believes the country is turning into a corporate plutocracy>>

>>the country is not turning into - it has always been a corporate plutocracy.
>> All this puts the activists community squarely in the domain of the unreasonable, and that is the way they are being treated and will continue to be treated.

“No reasonable person believes the US is becoming fascist”

You kidding?

1-Three times, G.W.Bush have stated that it would be easier to be a dictator. It's getting easier, don't you agree?

2- Why did G.W.Bush ask the president of Brazil if there are any blacks there?

3-Why is Mr. Bush so anxious to seal records that are nearly 20 years old?

4- Why has the Justice Dept. consistently refused to supply information to Congress on how the USA PATRIOT Act is being implemented, especially in light of the fact that passage of the act was conditional upon adequate oversight by Congress?

5- Why Mr. Bush Appointed John Negroponte - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador?

6-Why Mr. Bush Appointed Otto Reich - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure - to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs?.

7-Why Mr. Bush Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior?

8- Why Mr. Bush proposed a trillion tax cut, of which 43% will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans?

9- Why Mr. Bush Nominated Terrence Boyle - ardent opponent of civil rights - to a federal judgeship?



10- 9- Why Mr. Bush nominated Harvey Pitts - lawyer for teen sex video distributor - to head SEC?

11- Why Mr. Bush Reduced by 40% the Low Income Home Assistance Program for low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills?

12- Why Mr. Bush nominated Ted Olson - who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded "Arkansas Project" to bring down Bill Clinton - for Solicitor General?

13- Why Bush proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines?

14-Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family. Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Several business operations managed by Prescott Bush – the president’s grandfather - were seized by the US government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank’s shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler’s Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.



Doing business with the bin Laden empire, therefore, is only the latest extension of the Bush family’s financial ties to unsavory individuals and organizations. Now that thousands of American citizens have died in terrorist attacks and the nation is going to war, the American people should know about George W. Bush’s relationship with the family of Osama bin Laden.



“No reasonable person believes the country is turning into a corporate plutocracy“

1-How many Enron executives have gone to jail?

2-Why hasn't WorldCom been prosecuted for its 9 billion accounting fraud?

3- Who short sold United and American right before 9-11?

4- Why Bush nominated Linda Fisher - an executive with Monsanto - for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency?

5- Why Bush nominated J. Steven Giles - an oil and coal lobbyist - for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.?

4- Why many of Bush big campaign supporters are crooks who doctored their books in order to screw investors.?

5- Why Bush Gave the Taliban approximately million in may, 2001 so that they would allow pipelines for his buddies at Enron.

Etc.etc.etc



“No reasonable person believes the government is against environmental issues.“

1-Why did the President renege on his campaign promise to support the Kyoto Treaty on global warming?

2-Mr. Bush has had several skin lesions removed from his face. Why is it, then, that he does not support environmental legislation that would help reduce skin cancer?

3- Why Bush cabinet revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water?

4- Why Bush cabinet cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources?

5- Why Bush cabinet proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001?

6- Why Bush cabinet cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks?

7- Why Bush cabinet uspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws?

8- Why Bush cabinet OK'd Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting?

9- Why Bush abandoned a campaign pledge to invest 0 million for rain forest conservation?

10- Why Bush suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on Western public lands?

11- Why Bush cut Environmental Protection Agency budget by 0 million?

12- Why Bush proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List?

13- Why Bush rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps?

14- Why Bush abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming?

15- Why Bush OK'd Interior Secretary Gale Norton to go forth with a controversial plan to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida?

16- Why Bush announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling?

17- Why Bush proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments?

18- Why Bush Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality?

19- Why Bush allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re- introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness?

20- Why Bush refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah?



21- Why Bush Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit?



22- Why Bush proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building?



23- Why Bush canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars?

24- Why Bush proposes that .2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve?

25- Why Bush nominated Bennett Raley - who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act - for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science?

Etc.etc.etc



“No reasonable person believes the government wishes to spy on its own common citizenry but rather those who would conduct terrorists action against our people.”

1-Why did G.W.Bush administration lobby Tom Daschle to drop the investigation of 9-11?

2-After Andrew Card notified Bush on 9-11 that America was under attack, why did Bush spend almost 20 minutes reading a story about a pet goat? Documentation on this > http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

3-Why haven't Bush let the public see the 800-page 9-11 investigation report?

4-Why did Bush tell the FBI to back off the bin laden family?

5- Why did NORAD deviate from Standard Operating Procedure on the morning of 9-11, failing to scramble jets?

6- Why is it that million was invested in investigating Clinton's penis, and million allocated to investigate the Columbia shuttle disaster, yet only million was allocated to investigate 9-11?

7- Why did the White House start taking Cipro right after 9/11 and why didn't they advise the American people that an attack was imminent?

8- Why did anthrax only go to Democrats and media enemies?

9- Mr. Bush*, do you still "not give a damn" where Osama Bin Laden is?

10- Where are the WMD you promised us? (State of the Union speech, Jan. 2003: "25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

Etc.etc.etc

….so, yYou kidding?