English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-10 12:06:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

The figure is accurate to the nearest voter.

2006-12-10 12:25:27 · update #1

19 answers

well...seeing from like almost every other country in the world itdid seem kind of stupid...i swear bush hasnt done much else than attack other countries...no one really knew what kerry was going to do, but i think (globally speaking) he was the less of 2 evils
oh and yeah, WHY (pray tell) did bush attack irak? on the american point of view....really, clear it up cause i dont have a clue

2006-12-10 12:56:24 · answer #1 · answered by ninapinkcat 1 · 1 1

For the same reason that millions of dumbed-down Americans listen to Nazi-inspired Rush Limbaugh. We're more interested in Britney Spears' exposed crotch than we are in our corrupt political system. We 'ditto heads' believe anything the conservative-biased media preaches, and vote accordingly. Too bad, because this kind of ignorance has only served to destroy our country. -RKO-

2006-12-10 12:42:42 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2 2

How can millions of Americans be some dumb as to believe the lies they have heard about the President without being intelligent enough to do their own research. This may be the first President in US history not to try to correct misbeliefs and speak out to make himself more popular. He focused on what needed to be done. Proof:

Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.
Israeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.

So rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.

Of course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.

Michael Moore, thanks:
Friday, 23 June 2006
When News Lies


WHEN NEWS LIES
Media Complicity and The Iraq War


By Danny Schechter, The News Dissector



A new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."



"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."



WHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.

2006-12-10 12:11:36 · answer #3 · answered by Mark W 5 · 2 5

Because they vote by party, not by individuaMF And because John Kerry was even weaker than GWB was at that time. If Bush had to run now, he wouldn't win.

It looks really bad when your father's cronies and other diplomats have to rescue you from your stupid mistakes.

2006-12-10 12:42:19 · answer #4 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0 3

I think you meant SMART enoughto reelect George W Bush instead of that far left wack job Kerry.

2006-12-10 12:35:38 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3 2

You are the dumb one. If Kerry got elected, then the troops woulda got pulled and the Islamofacists could gain easy access to a WMD, and the US would be put at a greater risk of getting bombed. So Bush is saving your life.

2006-12-10 12:09:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 9 4

Are you a John Kerry fan?
If you know anything about him you realise how smart we all were to reelect GWB.

2006-12-10 12:14:32 · answer #7 · answered by Eric K 5 · 5 2

wasn't that a few years ago? way to stay on top of things.

2006-12-10 13:36:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Because he was a little bit less stupid than Kerry

2006-12-10 12:57:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

DeuceRide is right, we don't need you,& if you don't get out of here I'll send all of our liberals over to your country!

2006-12-10 12:23:22 · answer #10 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers