when bush speaks, liberals get "chills" running up and down their spines...?

Question

is that because you are secretly in lust with him, or just because your secretly glad hes protecting you from more attacks...?????

Answer 1

It goes back to the old saying that the "Truth Hurts".....but we are dealing with the criminally insane liberals which don't have feelings or morals, so it is just "chills' to them.
The sooner they do wake up, and stop the liberal hick ups in the nation, the sooner we can get on with making America great again.

Answer 2

No, we don't have chills run and down our back for Bush, The only chill runs up and down is to just see more troops coming home with no legs, no arms. Lust for Bush you have finally flipped your lid now you may be having lust for that goon but the Democrats wouldn't pi** in his guts if his a** was on fire. He is protecting no one and people like you, is the very reason you lost both houses , will lose in next year Senate race and the White House is ours for the taking. You were kick the curb by your own party and they don't want you anymore, If you want to lust after Bush you better hurry up because he is going to be gone.. I can't believe any person would accuse anyone of lusting after a moron , idiot, nasty dirty teeth, a monkey with parakeet face. You gotta be a sick person.

Answer 3

Not for me. I get chills out of anticipation of what "flub up" he's gunna make next! It's my own version of Comedy Central.

Oooh, and your key word is "more" attacks. I'd rather have a President who protected me from ANY and ALL attacks.

Answer 4

Its just because we cant wait to see the day he is out of office.
It gives peoople chills to see such a godless person could EVER have became the president of the UNITED STATES.And my nutsack is about as big as his brain.

Answer 5

Uh, while he's out there fighting a pointless war, our borders are still not secure and our incoming cargo still isn't searched enough, and the military grows weaker and weaker. He's not protecting us.

Answer 6

Neither one. I'm glad to see that you admit liberals have spines, which is more that I can say for you spineless Bush followers.

Answer 7

Or is it the reality that more Americans voted for him (allegedly) in the last two elections and its possible that it means more Americans are whacked out nut jobs that will strip down civil liberties in the name of the "mission."

Answer 8

Whats the point in bashing liberals here? They believe what they do just as conservatives. Its a never ending battle and there's no point in hating on the other side. It just sparks more anger and proves their point. This does go for both liberals and conservatives!

Answer 9

He is assuring we will have more attacks!

We aren't fighting terrorist, and there is no such thing as a War on Terror!

I am not afraid of attacks, but I would rather try and resolve why people are pissed at us so we don't, than make enemies which will assure us that we will!!

What I do not understand is Bush has a "Terrorist", who was in one of his secret CIA Torture Camps, who confessed to EVERYTHING except the Kennedy Assassination. If we have the one man who is responsible, why are all you Republicans crying that we are going to get attacked again?

If tou Republicans had of listened to Clinton after Bush was elected, and listened to him WELL BEFORE the attacks, they may not have happened! You are the ones to blame! No one else!

And quit running up the yellow flag, the stripe that runs down your backs!

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.".
______________________________________________________________________________________
Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Answer 10

each and every time I pay attention somebody sing that's relatively sturdy; ie, Kris Allen! btw desire he wins. in specific circumstances extremely emotional/unhappy memories. as quickly as I see people dancing it many times happens, fantastically whilst they do the cool tricks and flare strikes.