|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 10/31/2002 12:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 24856
Dizzy I agree with you and I tend to get clobbered when I voice my feelings about Bush and what I believe he is doing, so I reserve my right to be quiet on this one....you brave soul!!!!!  |
Date: 10/31/2002 12:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Like I said on the other post that "disappeared". Bush was indeed after these powers to be able to act quickly to any and all threats. But I feel beneath it all, and in particular in an election year, this puts the burden for timing-success and failure soley in President Bushs' hands. For your average congressman running for re-elections it's a win-win situation.  |
| Date: 10/31/2002 12:56:00 PM From Authorid: 53182 Yes, he is on a power trip. Bad things may come of all this if we don't get someone in office that dosn't have a football coach mentality about world politics. Bush is not my President. |
Date: 10/31/2002 12:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 30229
Yep, I think he is power tripping.. I think he is one heck of a dangerous man.. I am sincerely afraid of how the rest of his presidency will play out..   |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 12:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
See there's a USMer who has washed their hands of the whole thing too. |
Date: 10/31/2002 12:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 19586
He is definitely on a power trip. After all the praise from 9/11.  |
Date: 10/31/2002 12:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 42792
This is not the first time that congress has done this. It won't be the last. Essentially, the President can do this anyway, just this way, Congress has no need to hold the blame if anything goes wrong which will be a safety net should he mess up really bad. If he makes a good decision then Congress is able to take credit for their decision, as well. If you look at the possibilities, it makes sense, perfectly.  |
Date: 10/31/2002 1:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Here is an interesting quote: "Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy." Such were the stinging words of Gerald Kaufman, highly respected former foreign affairs spokesman of Britain's ruling Labour party, America's closest ally  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
I found a GREAT article on a website, but I am not for sure if all the info is correct. I am going to post the article here, and then I would like to know if any of you know if all of this is true? I may have to post it in two parts: Each day now, someone says something even more incredible ‚ even more unimaginable — about President Bush’s obsession with war. On Tuesday, George Bush was himself telling an audience in Cincinnati about "nuclear holy warriors". Forget for a moment that we still can’t prove Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Forget that the latest Bush speech was just a re-hash of all the "ifs" and "mays" and "coulds" in Tony Blair’s flimsy 16 pages of allegations in his historically dishonest "dossier". Forget that if Osama Bin Laden ever acquired a nuclear weapon, he’d probably use it first on Saddam. No. We’ve got to fight "nuclear holy warriors". That’s what we have to do to justify the whole charade through which we are being taken now by the White House, by Downing Street, by all the decaying "experts" on terrorism and, alas, far too many journalists. Forget the 14 Palestinians, including the 12-year-old child, killed by Israel a few hours before Bush spoke, forget that when his aircraft killed nine Palestinian children in July, along with one militant, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon — a "man of peace" in Bush’s words —described the slaughter as "a great success". Israel is on our side. Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama Bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush used it in his speech yesterday, 30 times in half an hour — that’s one "terrorism" a minute. But now let’s list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It’s essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians — which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US Embassy — in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was — wait for it — Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn’t chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no. Strangely, Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tareq Aziz — which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam’s use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget. We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds — when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al — President Bush Sr. provided him with $500 million in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam’s genocide was complete, President Bush Sr. doubled this subsidy to $1 billion, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons. And when President Bush Jr. promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam — as he did on Tuesday night — we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet Army in 1980 — and did nothing. We must forget how President Bush Sr. urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and — when they obeyed — did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country. We must forget how President Bush Jr. promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year — and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" — this after he has failed to catch Bin Laden, failed to catch Mulla Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity — and one of the few things which George Bush Jr. knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration — which is never mentioned. In all of Bush’s 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk on Tuesday — pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" — there wasn’t a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multibillionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:17:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
That article was from the palistine chronicle. I am a bit niave when it comes to things like this, and I would like to know if the things said were true or not, do any of you know? |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Key words in that quote: "Former Foriegn affairs spokesman" (what does that mean) and "Labour Party" no ally of American influence or Britans Prime Minister Tony Blair. But he is entitled to voice his opinion of course. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
We have indeed given Billions of dollars in aid to Iraq in the past, and right up until the invasion of Kuwait they were considered somewhat of an ally. The first Gulf war ended at the limits set forth by the UN- A huge mistake in my opinion. And the Somalia effort fell apart after Clinton took office- pulled out 10,000 US Marines and tried to solve the problem with a handfull of special forces, with of course terrible results. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Much as I'd like to stick around I have to bail. Good post Dizzy. |
Date: 10/31/2002 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 20104
I dont think any one person should have the ability to declare war on another country. It should be carefully decided by several people...pres, congress, etc. I dont think he should have all that power in his own hands.  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Ah, here's more info about the help that the U.S. gave to Iraq in the 80's. It was while ronald Reagan was president, but George Bush Sr. was vice president... I know this is old news but its very odd that we helped them so much in the eighties and now GW wants to destroy Saddam...It has been known for some time that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq during the war in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed. But the full scope of the program had not been known until now, the Times said. The cables and court records obtained by NBC News reveal the scope and nature of Rumsfeld’s role in shaping U.S. policy. Although U.S. officials deny that the United States looked the other way while Iraq used American intelligence data to plan chemical weapons assaults against Iran in the 1980s, there is evidence in declassified State Department cables and court records to indicate that even though the United States was aware that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, it was ready to help Iraq in thwarting Iranian “human-wave” attacks.“The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat,” says Teicher’s affidavit. “For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp |
Date: 10/31/2002 1:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 4614
Is the alternative to sit around and watch these mass murderers do their thing?  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:47:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Sundance-- It is not all black and white like you make it seem. Bush seems to want to declare war on any country that could hypotheticlly pose a threat to someone someday in the future-- is Bush psychic? How would he know who will someday pose a threat? |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 4614
Iraq is trying to make harmful weapons, future threat...He has already killed millions of his own people, destroy him...He will have evidence, then determine who is a threat...Sounds good to me... |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Sundance-- I am not really talking about Iraq specifically. What about Korea? Bush seems to want to take some kind of action against them because they admitted they do have nuclear weapons. (Although I believe he has said there will be no action taken at this time) |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 1:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Bush seems to want to push everyone around, including the UN. Just because he is the head of one of the most powerful countries in the world it doesn't mean he has to be a bully. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 2:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 4614
Somebody has to push the U.N. around.....And Korea lied to us...They should face the same penalty as Irag...Sorry for the double posts, my comp at work is bad... |
Date: 10/31/2002 2:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
I think that the world needs to stop making weapons of mass destruction. Why do we need more nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons? I don't support Mr. Bush blindly, however, if we do nothing how long will it be before one or more of these weapons falls into the hands of someone who will use them for their own political purpose. The United States is a big target because we have interests throughout the world. I think that we will be doing the world a favor if we topple Saddam and eliminate his potential for harm. I don't know what the world should do about North Korea. In North Korea most of the country lives in poverty while the have a huge standing army. Why. What do we as a people own other people in the world. Do we just stand by and watch them starve? When should the UN step in and say that the leadership of a country needs to be replaced sothat the people of the country don't have to suffer any longer? It is easy to ask questions and to tear things down, it is much harder to answer questions correctly and to build a future for all the people of the world.  |
| Date: 10/31/2002 2:22:00 PM From Authorid: 61311 HMMM.. maybe it's just me, but militant Islamic Iraqis don't seem so unthreatening when they hijack airplanes and crash them into major city buildings.. |
Date: 10/31/2002 2:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 54429
Nuke the the Talirags, nuke Korea, nuke Iraq, and justice will be served. Do you have no strive to survive? If someone is coming at you with a gun pointed at your head and just pulled the trigger only to see their out of bullets and you have a gun in your pocket, what would you do? I don't want my city to become a mushroom cloud just because we didn't do anything in the first place. I strive to survive.  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 2:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 54429
Oh and dizzy, every other country in the U.N. is a cuban cigar smoking Islamo Facsist country, i could care less if i had their support. What has the U.N. done in the past 10 years to make the world a better place? |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 2:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 54429
Im sure it's not just me, but to you it's like 9/11 never happened, most of us were affected by it, i hope you were too. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 2:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Its not ALWAYS about 9/11 you know. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 2:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
I do not see how so many people can sit there and think that our country need to go bomb these other countries to "get even" with them... It wouldn't solve anything. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 3:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Wild Bob-- I agree that the world needs to stop making weapons like that. But no one is gonna stop because no one trusts anyone... |
Date: 10/31/2002 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 58022
The UN does nothing. It sits around all day "thinking". Pres. Bush is the only person in power taking the iniciative to act. I think he's doing great. I totally agree with what Sundance, TheFinalSeraphim (61311)and SOH said. You are acting like if we don't do anything then they won't, which is the attitude people have had for decades, and why the world is in the state it is in now. I think Pres. Bush is doing a great job-he doesn't care what others think. He does what HE thinks should be done. Which I like. Who would you like to be handling this situation? Clinton (ha-ha)?? Also, don't condemn Bush Jr for what his dad did. They are two seperate people.  |
Date: 10/31/2002 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
He may be power tripping per say, but it would be a site to see him actually abuse the power. The man is not a genius but he is not exactly dumb either. After his presidency is over with he, along with the rest of his family has to live with what he does with that power. So if he just starts an all out war for absolultely no reason or just because he feels like it, it affects him also. Not to mention the fact that you need the backing of your military and it's personel in order to do such a thing. So I believe that our military has the sense to back out or jump in if it were to get over the line. Now in the case of Iraq, many of our troops have been looking forward to their second chance at it. My husband would go back over in a heartbeat if they needed him. So I don't think the military is going to object to invading Iraq, however if Bush just up and said Hey let's go storm Germany, I would "hope" that our military would tell him to go and do it himself. However I do agree that it wasn't very smart to give a sole person that kind of power...  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Dizzy I don't think it's so much that we are going over there to get even with them. It's more like okay we have put up with your terrorist bombing junk for over a decade now and we aren't taking it anymore....If we have to come in there, remove your government and replace it with a government that is going to keep it's people in line then so be it. I don't mean in the literal sense either, but a government that is going to say...OKAY, we are not gonna spend the next 1000 years fighting over religion and we aren't going to tolerate cults, organizations, training camps, or any of the sort that spread the kind of hate and violence that we saw on Sept 11th. I agree that if the U.N isn't going to do anything regarding Iraq then forget them, we should move in and finish what we started over 10 years ago. When it comes to "some" of those in power in the middle east and you are looking at weapons of mass destruction I would rather not wait it out and "see" if they plan on using them in our direction.... |
Date: 10/31/2002 5:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
This is indeed odd. Sounds like once Bush wins a few wars and gains the support of the American people, he could possibly convince congress to grant him dictatoral powers. After all, Germany was a democracy when Hitler came to power. Majority vote (after assassinating opponets though) gave him the power that started WWII. Hate to say it, but America is actually the bad guy this time.  |
Date: 10/31/2002 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
I think he is power hungry and yes, I do think that this war will be bad if he doesn't watch what he does. I think he just wants to prove to the world that we are the greatest nation in the world. Oh, he says we can give peace a chance, blah blah blah blah blah, but he doesn't go by what he says. He is on a power trip and he doesn't care what anybody else thinks. Our economy isn't that great; I think he needs to fix out foreign policies and the economy. The main reason we're in this dispute is because of our policies. I believe that we should help the people; sure, dropping down food to them is help, but we need to fix their government as well. In 2004, I'm not voting for him.  |
Date: 10/31/2002 8:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 16538
God this is like a one-sided arguement. And Somalia was Clintons mistake so don't blame it on any Bush. And so what we helped Osama Bin Laden then wanted to destroy him.  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 16538
90% of you know pretty much know about politics. So who are you to compare Hitler to Bush. And we're the bad guys.....So what does that make Saddam Hussein,Osama Bin Laden,and countless other good. I hate to say it but you're the stupid one this time. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
Nobody is saying Osama or Hussein are good. |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 9:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 16538
Then how are we being the bad guy's? |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
Tex, I just don't think it's right to go ahead and do something without consulting others first and thinking about the consequences. And he contradicts himself quite a bit. "Oh, I wanna give peace a chance!" Pffft! IS HE? I don't see peace right now, do you? |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 9:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 16538
Peace isn't sitting back and let the world go on by its self. You don't get it world peace doesn't come through magic speech's or magic lerpechauns. You have to go out there and enforce it. |
Date: 10/31/2002 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Your concern would be warranted if we lived in a dictatorship. Congress, comprising of a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House, passed this resolution after discussion and debate. I think it is fair to assume that Congress would not act in a way that was detrimental to its power. Bipartisan support indicates that members of Congress feel the President should have this authority. All the President has asked is that Saddam finally and completely comply with the UN resolutions Iraq agreed to nearly twelve years ago; Saddam could even remain in power. This is a power trip? Good post!  |
Date: 10/31/2002 10:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
quite odd also how the senator that apposed it died in a plane crash  |
Date: 10/31/2002 10:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
And everyone here really thinks Ale Gore could of done any better? The reality is that he is our president, like it or not, wether you can vote or not, he is our president. That is the reality, I am not sure pointing all your fingers and Bush is correct either. A president, if you think about, has not more power than the other branches of government. He is NOT the only one making descions, he is just the only one that talks about the publicly. If you would call he whole cabnit and the general government as a whole trying to get us into a war than ok yes, I believe they are. But singling out Bush is not correct, he is not the only one making these choices.  |
|
Date: 10/31/2002 10:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
But I do believe he is CORRECT in attacking Iraq. Yes, I will say ok to bombing a country who has the potential of producing people who commit terrorist acts and take innocent lives. It seems Dizzy, if it were up to you, we wouldn't so anyhting and anyone could do anyhting as long it wasn't against us. Make no mistake Iraq either has weapons of mass destrction or is trying to get them. And USA SHOULD NOT allow this to happen, because of the dire affects that would ensue. So what do you suggest Dizzy, a mild-mannered discussion? A little peace talk? I think those times are over. War isn't pretty but it is necessary sometimes, like now. |
Date: 11/1/2002 1:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 10146
Well if Bush can do this as the reports show, (and he can) tell me "why" he continues to put it off trying to get Congress to agree and back him, and the U.N. to agree and back him? Why don't he just scale a full fledge attack of Iraq Immediatly?  |
Date: 11/1/2002 6:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 34814
I think him and his father go on power trip and I have to agree with you on this one!!! Good Post!  |
Date: 11/1/2002 7:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 3395
Yeah, I think he has been on a power trip all along. A real righteous and powerful man would do all he could to find a way not to fight a war and would not be so seemingly war hungry. How can you fight evil with evil forces? It's like two magnets that don't attract. In my opinion, I think he is just trying to finish his father's business. Also, Bush is easliy influenced and seems to believe everything bad he hears about the rest of the world and how evil they are... yet he is hard headed, and those two forces just don't make for a good combination. Personally, this whole business with Iraq and war... I think he's just being pushed into it by hungry, decieving people who just want more personal and profitable gains. Oh well, that's my opinion. Peace,   |
| Date: 11/2/2002 12:44:00 AM From Authorid: 35060 Intersting point, i agree with what you say Dizzy Me. One aside is that Bush is surrounded by these advisors - Cheney etc hwo are labelled as hawks - but Colin Powell always gets descirbed as a dove. Yet he is war crinimal, in 1969 he tried to cover up the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam when the US troop murdered 400 villagers. those of us inm the UK were rooting for Al Gore and still see Bush as the theif on the hill. He comes across as a spoilt a man who just partied with a passion for most of his life they got elected govenor otf Texas and decied to sent as many people as he could to the chair. I sincerely hope he does not get a second term. He claims to be fighting a war agians terrorism but will he bomb Northern Ireland (Ira and UFF)? Will he bomb Spain (ETA)? and why are relation with Libya so good know? After all the Libyans are linked ot the Lockerbie bombing so you would think the US would go after them but no their after Saddam. If your looking for country with WMD in the middle east try Isreal. |
Date: 11/2/2002 7:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 15070
I was already aware of this resolution. *sigh*. There were "war powers"-type act(s) in effect already that could effectivly enable the United States President(s) to declare war legally. Technically, Vietnam was an illegal war. President Kennedy sent over U.S troops to help the French, and we became "involved" in what was supposed to be a police-action. To address your question(s), I no longer feel safe expressing my views publically about what the Bush family does & does not do. I switched my voter's reg. card from "Republican" to "non-Partisan", so I can now vote "issues", and not "parties". Dizzy-I admire your moxie & forthright manner, however- even if we could sway public opinion, about who & what the Bush family really is- it would make no difference. Good post!  |
Date: 11/2/2002 11:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 27678
Odd. No, not if you're a fascist dictator intent on waging a crusade for oil and control of the entire Arab world. In l956, John Dulles, Secretary of State, declared that we should never, ever, "lose control," of the Middle East, and the vast oil fields needed by Britain and US industry. Congress is obviously made up of sell-outs and wimps with no backbone or moral fortitude, to allow such a resolution to pass. They have simply handed Mr. Bush unlimited powers that may, indeed, spark the end of freedom and possibly the annihilation of most of humanity. This war is nothing more than a power grab of the poor of world, and the rich elitists are finally getting their way. Sadly, nothing can stop the bloodshed and suffering that has happened and will continue to happen, and when it is all over, there will be no winners but the global elitists intent on ruling every single man, woman and child in the world.  |
|
Date: 11/2/2002 4:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
Jestr, I think Wellstone's death was a murder. There was another guy a few years back - Mel Something ( I'm not sure ) - but he was a democrat and died the same way, just like Wellstone. I think there's a coincidence. |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
The Mystery-- are they two seperate people? I hadn't noticed, they have all the same cabinet members... |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Azairyia-- I am not saying that he's doing anything to "get even" with anyone... |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Big Tex-- yeah, inforcing peace with violence is a GREAT idea. (sarcasm) |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
vital death-- I never said Al Gore would have done better, I think they are both idiots. |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
vital death-- violence is not always the answer... sometimes there is more to the story than what WE see... |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Holly Love Bug-- I agree! |
|
Date: 11/3/2002 6:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
I will reply more in a little while |
|
Date: 11/4/2002 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
I'm sorry Dizzy I was only addressing a comment that you made... |
Date: 11/4/2002 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 61104
I think that is odd and unfair!! I agree that Bush is power hungry and I personally think that the only reason he became president is to win daddy's approval. *Gothgirl*  |
|
Date: 11/4/2002 6:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Azairyia-- You're right I did say that... *duh* nevermind... |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
