The current two party system is bought and sold by special interests. No wonder important issues are never resolved in Washington.

What was the headline that ran in a paper in the U.K. when George W. was "re-elected" in 2004: "How can 55 million people be so dumb?"

That was a great question at the time, one that more than half the country was asking themselves at the time, and it's an even better question now.

And it looks like a lot of those 55 million people who voted for Bush in 2004 are sending money to the Democrats in 2007. Maybe they're getting smarter. Or maybe they've just had enough.

George W. Bush (and his boss, Dick Cheney) have demonstrated such utter contempt for the rule of law, such total disdain for honesty, such mind-numbing incompetence and ineptitude in their handling of foreign policy that it is astonishing that any person capable of writing a sentence can continue to support him. I don't care how much FoxNews a person watches or how much conservative talk radio a person listens to, it's hard to draw any conclusions but that George Bush is a liar, a hypocrite and evidently delusional.

His ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq is playing out to be the most disastrous foreing policy decision in U.S. history. The consistent incompetence of the Bush administration has delivered to our enemies the best recruiting tool that Islamic Jihadists the world over could ever ask for - anybody remember "Abu Ghraib"? How the articles forbidding torture in the Geneva Convention were called "quaint"? How diplomacy was for wimps? Remember how the U.S. military was sent into Iraq with insufficient equipment, incompetent civilian leadership and no plan for how to occupy a country the size of California with way too few troops? "Shock and Awe", indeed.

Sandi, do you recall how, at a time when the vast majority of people across the globe were in mourning for 9/11 and even the French ran headlines that said, "We Are All Americans"? This was when Bush told the world "You're either with u

#3 austin
while i am no fan of GWB, i take issue with your fantasy that the french in particular, and the rest of the world more generally, was somehow in solidarity with the us after 9-11, and only learned to hate us because of bush. we are hated for who and what we are; it makes little difference who the president is. jihad has been declared against us since 1979. the french spent most of clinton's administration undermining our foreign policy in iraq. the peculiar hatred the world holds for bush is explained by his refusal to consider terrorism as a mere irritant, and to recognize it for what it is, the civilizational struggle of the 21st century. jihadists hate us for being the mother of western decadence. europeans hate us because they cannot understand our success in spite of what they consider our pathetic backwardness. it is weakness to worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Austin, I hope now you can understand:

No matter how much truth is evident out there, the majority stick to their personal liking.

No matter how much he (GWB and his goons) screws the country and his people, people feel it proud and patriotic to glorify him.

Something is really wrong with America. The logic seemed to have vanished. They consider all the nitty gritty details of others to justify the greatest blunders of our leader here.

I hope "God should really bless America"...

6. Jeet, Philadelphia, PA

Are you one of those Yanks that glorified and supported your previous President Clinton when he harassed and raped women & lied about it?

Hi, Rosie - I'm curious - can you explain what are you talking about with the reference to "your buddy Saddam"?

Rosie, you may hate the French and the United Nations - lots to criticize on both fronts, but if you'll re-read my comments you may notice that I never mentioned Saddam, and if you'll read the article you'll notice that what it's about is that current fundraising numbers indicate that George W. Bush is leading the Republican party down a rabbit hole. Do you have any opinions about that?

But to get back to your "Saddam" comment: Saddam was a despicable psychopath, and Iraq was a hellhole while he was in power. But even George Bush, in a rare moment of candor, has admitted that Saddam had "nothing to do" with 9/11.

Today Saddam is gone, that is true. Unfortunately, Iraq is an even WORSE hellhole than it was when he was there, our military is stretched to the limit, our borders and ports are still as tight as swiss cheese, and the "terrorists" are emboldened, not by those who criticize Bush, but by the Bush administration's amazing, incredible, continuing incompetence.

Even Joe Scarborough - former Republican Senator, star of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and "Morning Joe" - has said that we're spinning our wheels in Iraq, and that it's just a matter of time before we see a major terrorist attack on American soil. He's no Nostradamus, it's just obvious that when the Bush administration and their supporters claim that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" it's just wishful thinking - "faith based" politics, you might say.

To get back to the point of the article: Republicans are lagging Democrats in fundraising because the country is sick of subsidizing failure, which is the hallmark of the Bush administration.

The Democrats may not do any better - I'm enough of a pessimist to fear that that may be the case - but

George Bush, in a rare moment of candor, has admitted that Saddam had "nothing to do" with 9/11.

You Liar

8. Austin, Texas, Austin, Texas

You are a brainwashed idiot. Stop hanging out with Rosie O'Donnell.

Even Joe Scarborough - former Republican Senator, star of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and "Morning Joe"

He was not a Senator, he was a Representive. He was a RINO, Republican In Name Only. FOX News has most of the ratings so he has to cater to the looney liberals who will watch his show.

8. Austin, Texas

You can't really be from Texas, I bet you are from West Virginia.

Roll on November 2008.

Entropent - I believe that if you look at the public opinion polls in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 you'll see that there was, in fact, a great wave of sympathy and pro-American sentiment world-wide.

Regarding your statement that "jihadists hate us for being the mother of western decadence" I'd recommend that you read "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer, 22 year veteran of the CIA and former Chief of the CIA Counter Terrorism Center. Here's a quote, from page 8:

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to blieve - at the urging of senior U.S. leaders - that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish. With due respect for those who have concluded that we are hated for what we are, think, and represent, I beg to disagree and contend that your conclusion is errant and potentially fatal nonsense. As Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan, has said, the "Robotic repetition of 'because they hate freedom' does not do as an explanation.""

Read this book. It's an eye-opener.

Hey, Jason - I'm not lying about George W. admitting that Saddam Hussein had "nothing" to do with 9/11, and here's the quote:

President Bush: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of we're going to stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
President Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?
REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?
President Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.
-- White House, Aug. 21, 2006

Good night, y'all.

#3-Austin- Our other choice was John "suck up to the UN, send our troops to Darfur, offer Iran some materials for their nuclear program, raise taxes, degrade our troops, nixing our Allies fighting with us in Iraq ("going at it alone") Kerry. Seems like the 55 million who voted for GW actually watched the debates between him & kerry.

1) Democrat President JFK had 16,000 military personel in Vietnam at the time of his death. The UK has less than 7,000 troops in Iraq! So JFK was anti-war then was he?

2) Democrat President LB Johnson escalted the Vietnam War. Anti-war was he?

3) One of the biggest anti-Vietnam war demos took place at the DEMOCRATS convention in Chicago in 1968.

4) Republican President Nixon fought and won his election on a campaign to get US troops out of Vietnam - correct?

5) The Irish Amercian Democrats in Boston have had no problem raising money for the IRA for the last 30 years while successive Presidents allowed Sinn Fein to keep its office open in Washington DC!

6) Some British troops in Northern Ireland were killed by high powered rifles bought and paid for by Irish American Boston DEMOCRATS - who now claim to be anti-war and anti-violence.

The IRA were training with muslim terrorist groups more than 20 years ago - with the financial help of the Boston anti-war Democrats (anti-war when the side they are supporting is getting a hiding).

Irish Catholic American Michael Moore forgot to mention all this when condemning, quote, "Amercas love affair with guns" in his movie Bowling For Columbine.

He preferred to criticise Scottish American Charlton Heston. Maybe if Heston was to donate money to the IRA then Irish amercian Moore might have left him alone!

Moore forgot to mention that more kids in the USA die in swimming pool accidents every year than die in gun related accidents. His 'aim' after all was to make the right wing Heston look bad.

Moore, the DEMOCRAT, went on to call Iraqi insurgents 'freedom fighters' and the US troops 'Nazis'. His anti-war ally George Galloway (Alex Salmond's friend) followed up by making almost identical comments.

7) Left wingers Michael Moore, George Galloway and Alex Salmond would have us believe that the Iraqi insurgents and the IRA do not have a &qu

#12 Jason

WV is traditionally Democrat but GWB won there.

If you have enough money, you can elect a chimp to the white house... it would probably do a better job and be much more popular

Obscene,the person with the most money gets to be the president,only in America.

De Mato in ISR (Chicago) (I think):

"One US party will continue the industrialist agenda while the other party is out of favour with the masses."

4. Rosie's Opinion, USA

"The French president at the time and Coffi were taking bribes from Saddam to vote against going into Iraq. Several leaders were getting their pockets lined with Saddams money."

a) Not a jot of real evidence to support such a ludicrous comment.
b) Koffi was the man that the USA put as head of the UN. The UN actually wanted someone else!
c) Money created by the 'oil for food' program was put in ESCROW and managed by the UN.
d) THe 'food' parcel production contract was given to a turkish firm who repeatedly screwed up the order but took the money anyway.
e) Who put Saddam in power in the 2st place? What US gov agency did he worlk for?
f) Name one crime that Saddam has been accused of that hasn't been done by a US president?

As long as private funding is permitted there will NEVER be democracy in America.

Yes there may be freedom, but thats not democracy. According to the old philosophers there was only 3 forms of governance. Democracy,Monarchy and Despotic. In order for each to work the underlying principle must be adhered to.

For monarchy it is honour
For despotic it is fear
For democracy it is virtue.

As long as their is private funding, there is no virtue to speak of. The American election race is a farcical disgrace.

I just wish that the Americans would stop blaming god , saying that "it's god's will" or god is on our side.
Sorry guys ,ain't no such person!

23. Finnking II

You are despicable saying Saddam was no worse than any US president. You are really sick. The rest of your rant is ridiculous.

26. Polly Ann

Okay, then answer me the question posed. What was saddam accused of that has not been done by a US president?

You can play the 'glad game' all you want but until you can actually answer that question there is little point in you praising US 'leaders' while demonising others'.

#25 Skatehead: God is various things to different people.

If you believe in the bible then he is the creator who murdered Egyptian babies.

If you dont believe in the bible then god is energy, or a genie or some higher force without a face. god can be positive thinking or faith in an eternal universal power. Offcourse, god can also be nothing as with an athiest.

But I know what you mean..You are speaking generally and in doing so exposing the religious brainwashing that has taken place in America over the last decade. I wouldnt worry, these christian and evangelic fundamentalists will soon die off. Nobody really takes them seriously and stranger still as that most of them dont actually believe that god exists. Let one of them arrive at church on a Sunday saying that they had a visit from Jesus the night before and they will have the person in a straight jacket. The belief in god is easy for them to deal with, the reality that god actually exists is another story. But its what keeps them going, so I guess we must respect their position, even if we find it disturbingly cult like and void of reason.

Polly Ann: I know you cannot see Bush in the same light as Saddam because the one person has been knowingly exposed as a tyrant whilst the other is the president of a famous democracy.

However, the underlying principles that govern both men are essentially the same. Its power at all costs regardless of the casualities, the devastation and the loss of life.

Both claim to be religious, only Saddam was! Bush is no more a chrisitan than Charles Manson. That is perfectly acceptable, there is nothing wrong with not being godly,,but using the imaginary god as a tool to generate more votes is a cheap shot indeed.

Finnking is merely exploring the deeper picture as opposed to the picture painted by those who do not want you to see the actual image within the underlying tones.

Bush may not be a tyrant in the true sense of the word. But that does not mean he is not capable of tyranny. What Saddam did openly, Bush does in the clandenstine corridors of power within US government. Both men are similar in many ways, they just wield their axes differently.

27. Finnking II

I can't think of any modern US President that have killed tens of thousands of thier own citizens with poison gas because they did not agree with their politics. and bury them in mass graves. With your agreement with Wally and thatscottishwoman on several posts I'm sure you'll provide a wacky link.

I'd also like you to point out the US preisents that have Rape rooms in the USA where they send 1000's of familys.

29. Media 1

LOL

Saddam's Charges

1.Anfal 'ethnic cleansing' campaign against Kurds, 1988

Okay, during the sanctions period, the US/'uk' impossed so-called no-fly zones. The USA government assumed all rights over these areas. During that period the USA allowed Turkish forces to kill Kurds in the north of Iraq and these forces also 'cleared' hundreds of villages.

2. Gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988

During the early part of the Iraq invasion, the USA was in charge of the country. The US forces used Mark 77 (napalm by another name) on the city of Faluja horrifically killing many citizens.

3.Invasion of Kuwait, 1990

Har har har: Do I need to go there? Approximately 28 countries have been invaded by the USA.

4.Crushing the Kurdish and Shia rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War

Oh, the irony! Crushing rebellion: The Whiskey Revolt?

5. Killing political activists over 30 years

Filiberto Ojeda Rios? Cointelpro?

6. Massacre of members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983

Massacre of Sudanese children by Clinton when he bombed a drug firm in the suddan (just before his case came up). The firm had been praised by the UN for its contributionto affordable medicine. Pushing through the sanctions (siege) of Iraq: a massacre of 500 000 children. The shooting down of an Iranian civilian aeroplane: massacre of 66 kids. Haditha? Falluja? Kunduz? Horoshima/Nagasaki? Wiyot Indians (plus others)?

7.Killing of religious leaders in 1974

David Koresh?

Nope, can't find a single crime that Saddam was accused of commiting that hasn't been done (many times) by US presidents.

30. Polly Ann

What nation state supported Saddam during his crimes against the kurds? What state vetoed the UN proposal to urge negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons in 1981? What state vetoed a UN proposal to "Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons" in 1982?

29. Media 1

Yeah, there are idiots on all sides while we 'herd' (on all sides) get killed.

Finnking: Polly is merely expressing her blinkered views.

33. Finnking II

Dude, are you smoking what Al Gore's son is smoking?

Toro the ADVERT poster

Koresh was an ACCIDENT?!!! Ah, I see. Hundreds of seriously tooled up FBI guys turned up by accident, did they? Just happened to be passing?

I also note that the only thing in my list that you can complain about is the crime of "Killing Religious Leaders". Let's see if I or anyone else can find another religious leader killed by the US governemment.......must have been a few native NA indian reigious folk killed. Martin Luther King: retrial concluded that government officials were involved? I think that statistically, it would be very likely that the USA gov. had killed "religious leaders" at some point.

No money = no real vote. Moneyocracy..

Money buys power. Following the money trail didn't start with Nixon but was always there. It exploded after the election in 1960 when the debates were first televised. That is why I would like to see the campain season be shortened.

Media 1, you do not understand America and our culture at all. You see we have freedom of expression here. We also have freedom to participate in our elections. I will not say it is one hundred percent good but in the long run it is the best.

44. Reading Public

Thank you. Sincerely.

#44 Reading Public:... and a big thank you from me:-)

Why bother with an election at all? Who raises the most money becomes President and then runs the country according to what his or her backers decide.

The only difference between this and what happens now is the lack of an election.

45. thatscottishwoman 2

Aye, but only for verbal sh*t!

BTW: Half decent hangover 'cure': The night before, put a disposable nappy in the freezer. In the morning place said nappy on head. Fits great.

48. Lock

"Why vote?"---what a good point!

THere are many of us on these fora who do not vote as we can see it's pointless in 99% of the situations. The media influence the public opinion in the way the kirks used to, the 'candidates' are selected by maybe 40 other folk (none of whom you will ever know) and, when the result may not go the way they want it, they cheat (Florida, Ohio, Scotland). It's a myth. There is no democracy, anywhere.

#49 Finnking:

Hmmm, wonder what the neighbours would think. I find a cup of maramia infused tea from the mountains of the West Bank works well.

#50 Finnking: Aye it was ever thus. Come the day when we are given the opportunity to tick the "none of the above" box.

45. thatscottishwoman 2

Of course, the other benefit of the disposable nappy on head routine is that very few people will actively seek to engage you in conversation while you are wearing a nappy on your head.

And it's reusable!

51. thatscottishwoman 2

Or simply have votes based upon "Issues" instead of "Political Parties". Can't have that! That would give some power to the masses! They would stop watching Dr.Phil and "I'm an idiot, get me out of here" and may actually get involved in local issues and may actually start educating themselves about the issues! My God, what terrible things would the herd do then?

I NEVER get hangovers because I simply refrain from toxins that make me think and act a bit differently than normal.

I lie a lot too.

#53 Finnking:

Fit! deliberative democracy in the UK - cannae hiv ony o' that power to the people nonsense, it wid pit maist o' they politicians oot o' a job fer a stairt. Then ye would get folk thinkin they kent better than the suits, they micht even stairt tae challenge the decisions that ir made in th'ir name, folk micht stairt decidin that it's better tae spend the treasury funds in the community instead o' waging illegal wars, oh no, thon's an affy dangerous road tae gang doon.

#44--Reading Public---hi guy!...""unfortunately we have awaken a nasty group of people that are going to do us harm""
awakened? i wasn't aware they had gone nite-nite?
seriously, are these not the same groups that have been killing American citizens for many years prior to the Iraq invasion?

#50--FinnkingII--""there are many of us on these fora who do not vote as we can see it's pointless in 99% of the situations""
did you peek into your crystal ball for that one? i could guess at those i believe don't vote, but can't confirm, yet you are sure...how so?
i would 'guess' that most posters on these fora are indeed voters, for how can one have such compassion & knowledge of issues related to their gov't or the world in general & not want their vote to count & hopefully make a difference?? are you one of those non-voters you speak of?

#50--FinnkingII---in our 2000 presidential election, we had 206million 'voting age population', of that, 194million 'eligible voters', with a 54.5% voter turnout.....45.5% of the eligible voters didn't show up!! i suppose they thought it was 'pointless' too, but oh what a difference 45.5% of the population can make....in 1994, only 43% of the eligible voters participated & we got clinton for 4/more/yrs..

it does make a difference.......

#43 Aoda: I understand that freedom of expression is a civil liberty in almost every European nation. AMERICA is merely a by product of Europe. If not for Europe there would be no America. America was built by Europeans, in truth there is no such thing as an American, there is only 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th and 7th generation Europeans.

But the freedom of expression you speak about has little to do with private funding. OR should have little to do with private funding. There is no doubt that America has certain modern aspects about it. I guess there is even places where one would feel that the were in civilised Europe, but that does not mean that your political process is flawless. I think there is room for improvment.

Nothing will change in the US regarding election fundraising unless the system is changed to public funding of elections. That is the only way to keep special interests from buying influence.

This will never happen here, because, amazingly, giving money to a political candidate is considered "free speech" and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.

I believe that more people would vote if they thought their candidate was paying as much attention to them as to the biggest donor.

first... kofi

yeah well the US does not appoint the secretary general of the UN... head of the UN is nominated by the security council.... the US has ONE vote of FIFTEEN and then voted by the general assembly

as far as the UN... you can have it... please... take it... oh yeah... please also be prepared to cut the budget by 20% (the annual US contribution)... on its best day it was a flawed organization... RUSSIA had 3 votes on the security council? why?

secondly....
US gassing kurds in habjala in 1988.... US forces in Iraq.... in 1988.... did you miss your meds?

on second thought this doent appar to be the ORIGINAL finnking...

56. sandy

(Sorry for delay. Hay work.)

Well, I just made an assumption that 90% of the anarchists won't vote. Yes, I do not vote. I once took part in the so-called democratic process, but I didn't inhale.

60. mike - across the pond

Oh, it is.

I can't be bothered to search it but I do remember the other SC member wanting some guy and the US making a fuss as they wanted Koffi. May be wrong, but I tend to mind these things well.

Regarding the rest: I never wrote that the US gassed the Kurds. You made that up! I was simply pointing out to Polly Ann that the charges against Saddam could easily be made against US presidents. That's all.

Can't help but wonder if one national primary day
after a few months of campaigning might improve the situation a little. All the money and endless ads make it seem as if candidates announce the day after the inauguration. I still think an intelligent non-party person should run in 2008.

your post #32 reads

"2. Gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988

During the early part of the Iraq invasion, the USA was in charge of the country. The US forces used Mark 77 (napalm by another name) on the city of Faluja horrifically killing many citizens."

guess you were talking about hussein... in the title... then flipping over to 2002 comparing US wartime activities to Hussein's crimes against humanity...

a few small little problems with your comparisons
1) how can you compare killing a few hundred in fallujah with thousands in halabja?

2) how can you compare napalm & nerve gas?

3) how can you compare the USE of napalm vs the USE of nerve gas?

Correct me if I am wrong here but Geneva convention outlaws nerve gas... napalm... yeah no mention... but then again I guess the Geneva convention doesnt cover warfare against one's own citizenry now does it???

you appear to want to outlaw wartime activities, after the fact... Well what about Dresden, pal? Dresden was more akin to Halabja than any activities in Fallujah...

60. mike - across the pond

Mike, do you really think you can reason with a guy like Finnking who thinks all the US Presidents are/were just as bad as Saddam?

#59--Sandi--i agree with the public funding, & that would apply to all candidates, however, the top candidates do get matching(public)funds, if they want...
""i believe more people would vote if they thought their candidate was paying as much attention to them as the biggest donor""....
it is up to the voter to demand that attention, as happened w/the immigration legislation...apathy has taken over in this country & if we don't snap out of it we're in trouble.....both houses of Congress have been legislating w/out the full participation of we-the-people far too long & i'm sick of it.....it's easy to blame 'big business', but most of the blame lies with the individual voter who just doesn't give a darn...

It is easy to understand why people hate the U.S.A and will find any excuse to put us down, it is because This is the best country in the World. No one and i mean no one can stop us. Keep blaming Bush for everthing you people always have a reason not to blame yourself that is why you need the goverment to tell you what to do. libs wont win the elections here because they dont belive in having women or minorities in power if they did the intercitys would ran by these people for years would show improvement. if they really belived what they say how come they dont go after china about the environment or go and help the poor helpless women get thier right in iraq, iran and Afghanistan because they really dont care about anyone but themselves and power. but as a conservative i will fight for thier right to be that way because thats what we do here in America thats why we are the best and always will. P.S. howcome with it being so bad here why dont the libs go and live in the Countries they support? no freedom of speech ?

64. mike - across the pond

The "Titles", 1 to 7, are the specific charges brought against Saddam. Under each charge (1-7) I am trying to show the activities of US gov.

Your points:

1. In the same way as any civilised court of law would. Kiling folk is killing folk. Okay, let's add to my list the use of DU and the knowledge of it's effect on the population.

2. Easily, they are both chemical weapons. The effects of both are horrific.

3. Of ourse they are the same.

If you are saying that another charge against Saddam was his non compliance wit the the Geneva Convention, then my theory still applies. Abu Graib, Gtmo? Mark 77? etc etc. There are various treaties on weapon use. Napalm is banned. However, just change the name to Mark 77 and, hey presto, "No, we are not using Napalm".

"you appear to want to outlaw wartime activities, after the fact..."

--Noooo, well before the fact! However, that's not the thrust of my argument here. But, if you are saying that, in certain circumstances, it's okay to kill civilians, it's justified in some way, then i wold suggest that everyone from the Romans to Idiot Boy via hitler, lenin, pol pot and stalin.. would say the same.

65. Stonefield

Read what I have written and then read what you wrote. You have twisted my words to suit yourself. I wonder why you would do that? Ahem.

67. FreedomFighter

"It is easy to understand why people hate the U.S.A and will find any excuse to put us down, it is because This is the best country in the World."

Suggesting that the crimes levelled against Saddam could be levelled against the US government/presidents is not ANTI anything. If you think that the USA is the best country in the world, that's great for you. I think all states are corrupt and oppressive. Freedom of speech? Anytime I express my digust at USA foreign policy, I am denounced as anti-american by some fol