Thursday, October 21, 2004

the case against bush

anyone but bush

4 comments:

Jeffrey Hill said...

Which one of those points do you believe?

mat said...

#3 and #6 are enough reason for this guy to go.

Jeffrey Hill said...

I can't read too much in the composition of the 9/11 terrorists. Doubtless Saudi Arabia and Egypt provide support for terror, but who's to say that the make-up of the group wasn't contrived for some effect. Certainly al Qaeda has spread beyond those two countries. And it scares the dickens out of me to think that some Americans don't realize how important and vital Musharraff is to the War on Terror. Granted, Ted Rall is about as credible as he is funny, yet, that you cited point #3 as an example is very alarming to me.

Point #6 is so vague and overstated, as far as I can tell, that I lend as much validity to it as when Kerry insinuates that a million black voters were disenfranchised in 2000.

mat said...

i agree with reason #3 more in terms of "the grand diversion" of bush's decision to overtake iraq (bonus: rall's reason #4--a lot of dead people) as an act of fighting terrorists.

reason #6 may be overstated, but individuals becoming "unpersons" has been reported in the news. i remember one report where a lawyer "discovered" an individual due to a court clerical error. i would like a president to say, "this is not good. this is unamerican."