Mike Luckovich

By getalife

July 10, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

w,cheney and their supporters.

By @@

July 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

That’s easy ml. Radical Islamists (Bin Laden) uses the depravity of liberalism to rally his religious supporters so…Bin Laden AND liberalism has and will do more damage.

When it comes to political parties however, Bin Laden favors the liberal Democrats. They’re easier to defeat. If they win the election, he gets to kill two birds with one stone…

liberalism in America.

The rest of us here will be included in those “innocent” victims he’s so fond of taking out.

By getalife

July 10, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

D@@sty,

Liberals did not promise “wanted dead or alive” and the cut and run to occupy Iraq.

Liberals did not see the memo about the attack and say “you covered yor as-s now” and did nothing to stop it.

wingnuts are cowards who will admit their failures.

wingnuts think the law does not apply to them.

wingnuts should think about their country and stay at home in 08.

Geez.

By bon scott

July 10, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

getalife, you hit the nail right on the head.

bin Laden started this fight. But then the Bush-Cheney team took the fight and turned Iraq into the best recruitment tool Osama could have ever hoped for. Beyond his wildest dreams. “Infidels” talking about “crusades” in the heart of Islam.

“Bring ‘em on!”

Morons.

To answer your question, Mike, I fault Bush-Cheney now more than Osama. Impeach those idiots.

By Cross your fingers

July 10, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I saw a cartoonist died in a car accident, luckily ML was locked securely in his basement downloading andy’s porn.

By Bosch

July 10, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Cross your fingers, You are sick. That’s really absurd.

Mike, I think the Bush/Cheney machine has been much, much worse for this country than Osama.

By Cross your fingers

July 10, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Just as long as it is okay for Maher to say it, effin hypocrites. Quit whining and quit wasting my tax dollars on your illegal immigrants and too lazy to find a job welfare recipients. My money should be buying bombs.

By Mrs. Godzilla

July 11, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

The Bush Cheney administration most certainly has been more destructive to this country.

Iraq is just one small part of the damage.

By Bob

July 11, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

This is no contest. Bush and Cheeny policies have made Al-Qaeda stronger. bin Laden was responsible for 2752 deaths on 9/11. Bush and Cheney are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq (3609 Americans in Iraq, 342 in Afghanistan)with no impact on Al-Qaeda’s ability to commit more terror attacks. In addition to being incompetent, they have trampled over the constitution, appointed conservative hacks and stacked the supreme court with activist judges (its OK to be activist is you are right wing). I could go on and on. The bottom line is that partisanship trumps everything in the Bush administration and that is far more destructive than bin Laden. It will take decades to undo the mess these guys have created.

By Cross your fingers

July 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Let’s all sing campfire songs and pray to Mohammad, because that is the only way they would leave us alone. Oh yea, Godzilla, get out your burqa, your rights are gone. Bob, partisanship trumps everything, PERIOD. It is not a Republican issue, it is not a Democrat issue, it is a friggin too damn stubborn to do what is right issue. Both sides posture and nothing gets done. And you know what, that probably is what is best.

By Scooter

July 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

None of the above. The most damage to this country has been done by the “media”. For instance, during WWII the media voluntarily agreed to not print anything that COULD be beneficial to the enemy. Fast forward to today and we have a “media” that will willingly inform the enemy that calls between foreign countries and America may be monitored, or foreign banking information may be solicited from certain countries. Today’s “media” will ignore the fact that some fighting against us in Iraq will blow themselves up to kill our troops, in order to criticize a soldier for shooting a seemingly unarmed man who had been shot while shooting at our troops. This is a war against ideology and the terrorist can disseminate their info to hopeless recruits, but: if America tries to drop any leaflets of information countering the recruiters message, well… you can count on today’s “media” to be there to criticize that. The list goes on and on.

The fact is, many democrats said Iraq posed an imminent threat before the inspectors were removed from Iraq in 1998. Now we know Saddam corrupted the Oil for Food Program and I assume it was with the intention of eroding sanctions to get the UN off his back. Once the UN was off his back he could reconstitute his WMD programs. Thanks to George W. Bush, the world will never have to contend with the evil of Saddam Hussein again.

Here is an offering from OUR President the other day; “What would the Iranians think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge? What would other extremists think? What would al Qaeda be able to do? They’d be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives. Failure in Iraq would have serious consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.”

By Bob

July 11, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Mike,

I learned a new word today, wingnuts. Your blog is full of them. Blame the media, blame the democrats, blame everyone but the people who have controlled all branches of government for the mess that has been created!

By getalife

July 11, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget to blame “Clenis”.

wingnuts,

Geez.

By Rhett Millsaps

July 11, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

If each person who has an opinion on the Iraqi war were an Iraqi, attacked by Iranians, and many other outside sources, how would you feel when a country comes in, removes those who murder at will, and then leave you to be murdered and ruled by Iran. Let the president conduct the war and pray for him and our troops for victory, nothing less. To leave now or when it suits some to get reelected, is would indicate to the world that we are weak, you can count on us and we surly would bring the war home with them. Wake up people, have you all forgotten 9/11, and the constant attacks on us since 1979? Do you think if we leave, all will be forgotten and forgiven? Strength is the only thing that these murderers know and we been stay and show it now, or we will be seen all of the world as losers. As a disabled veteran who was drafted for a war that was simply there for the profit of the Johnson family and power of J Egar Hover, this war is about freedom in an area we depend on for our survial. WAKE UP AND SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AND THE TROOPS AND STOP THE POLITICS.

By Scooter

July 11, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

So Bob, do you think Saddam’s intentions were changed (even with his corrupting of the UN O.F.F. Program) or do you think Iraq was going to be the one powerful country that the UN was going to be able to pacify with resolutions? Perhaps you are like the rest who think contained men exert the necessary efforts to corrupt a humanitarian program like Oil for Food.

Do you have anything to say about the several examples of media I presented, or simply rely on the distraction model mastered by the irrational. Because you didn’t address a single portion of my post.

The mess you refer to is called war and Saddam was asking for it for a decade. Has there ever been a neat war that was executed perfectly? During the decade Saddam taunted the US and the UN it only made us and the UN look weak in the eyes of the world’s thugs, seems to be OK with you.

Do you think whacking moles worked for 30 years and culminated in the attack of 9/11 and therefore we should continue to whack moles.

By Cross your fingers

July 11, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Bob, I’m surprised you are learning new words, I didn’t realize they had a dictionary in the sand where your head is.

Rhett, Support the President?!?! Okay, tell me how I can support the president when it is pretty evident to anyone who breaks down the BS from CNN, New York Times, Fox News, etc. and comes out with a guy who is supposed to lead, but does so in a manner that alienates everyone? If he were a company CEO the board would probably oust him with a nice severance. However, impeachment a) is too severe b) is not yet warranted c) would not change a darn thing.

getalife, nothing for you, I’ll just say hello.

By Bob

July 11, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

No one would argue that Sadaam was not a bad guy-very bad. But can you rationally explain how Iraq is better off now than when Sadaam was in power? Or can you tell us how we are any safer? Maybe Sadaam was asking for it, but this diversion has given Al-Qaeda a free pass to operate in many parts of the world while we are bogged down refereeing a civil war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The question of the day was about bin Laden, not Sadaam. The two were not connected.

By Scooter

July 11, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

The diversionary tactic of answering questions with questions. Nice!

The broad answer to your diversion is, this is a long term strategy to marginalize the ideology of radical islamist through freedom and representative government. We can stay and see it through or we can yet again show the terrorist that our “media’s” slanted coverage will always terrorize the US electorate into retreating. Our retreat will show the world that we cannot be depended on to support people who want to raise up out from under their oppressive rulers. May not apply to Iraq because Saddam won elections in the mid 90 percentile range and they got incrementally better with every election, hmmmmm?

You know Bob, you say our involvement in Iraq has given Al-Qaeda a free pass to operate around the world. I really have no idea what you mean by that. Do you remember Khalid Sheik Muhammed being pulled from his room in Pakistan (?) as our troops were marching to Baghdad? Or, do you realize how many Al-Qaeda leaders have been captured around the globe? Also, isn’t that more of a job for the CIA and others, not the uniformed military?

Since you haven’t seen fit to address a single item I have put forth, which is typical, I will use the same diversion. Oh wait, its too late because I have already tried to address yours

Straight out of your own book of diversionary tactics; Can you Bob, rationally explain to me how Saddam was any less of threat, or the UN was any more effective in early 2003, than when the Dems were making their statements in 1998? Or, are you simply going to say 9/11 showed us bigger moles to whack?

Bob, if you continue to avoid my points, this debate will end.

By Bob

July 11, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Scooter, What is this obsession with Saddam? The question is, “who has been more destructive to this country, bin laden or bush-cheney?” Let’s debate the evil of Saddam at some other time. Saddam was no significant threat. He had been neutralized with the no-fly zones and the embargo and possessed no WMD. bin Laden was and still is plotting evil acts toward the free world. Bush/Cheney have wasted untold resources and valuable time, not to mention lives, in a place Al-Qeada was virtually non-existent. That is one among the many screw-ups that this administration has done to damage our country. There are many disturbing aspects to the Bush Administration that historians will examine and perhaps, if they are charitable, chalk up to an overreaction to the 9/11 attacks or perhaps a zealotry for securing the United States from another, bigger catastrophe. But there is one facet of the Bush Presidency that historians will universally and roundly condemn; the politicization of governance that, top to bottom, has interfered with many of the vital functions we expect the government to carry out.

By Scooter

July 11, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

ml’s question is far to broad for me to allow him to restrict my choices. you chose to semi address my first post and I have since pointed out several other factors and you have not addressed them. So, this debate is over.

By Bob

July 11, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this

Scooter, The debate usually ends when people cannot deal with the facts. As long as we are dealing with ideology and opinion, you seem comfortable. When I bring up reality, you want to drop out. That indicates to me you have nothing to counter my arguments with. So go ahead and pretend Saddam was behind 9/11 and buddies with bin Laden. You can listen to Rush and Coulter and O’Reilly all day to petpetuate your fantasy world.

By Scooter

July 12, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this

No fly zones and Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11 are the only “facts” I see that you have presented.

Salman Pak: secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp.

You say no-fly zones and embargoes neutralized Saddam. I say what? How in the world did preventing Saddam from gassing his own people via no fly zones, “neutralize” him from eroding sanctions in order to reconstitute his WMD programs?

The Kay and Duelfer Reports both spoke of the intentions behind Saddam’s corruption of the O.F.F. Program (fact). But, as usual the “media” ignored these parts while emphasizing the portion that said Saddam temporarily disarmed. If you can still type that Saddam was neutralized you are a willing accomplice in ignoring the motive behind the corruption. Do neutralized men exert the effort necessary to corrupt humanitarian programs? ANSWER THAT PLEASE!

Shouldn’t the UN allowing Iraqis to starve while their representatives received payoffs really tick libs off? Obviously not, if a repubicrat is President and the UN is who you defer responsibility to.

We found WMD’s just not large stockpiles of recently produced WMD’s.

Your questions that can be answered with any level of certainty have been answered. Questions like; can I say we are safer now, require me to venture far out onto the limbs of the unknowable. Only mentally lightweight liberals overwhelmed with blind compassion and Bush Derangement Syndrome feel safe on those limbs.

Please Bob, highlight any “facts” you present in the future so I can be sure to address them while you ignore mine, OK?

The power of the media is truly amazing!

By Clyde

July 12, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Something deeply disturbed in a “man” who calls himself “scooter.” ick.

By Bryan

July 12, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

The Bush-Cheney gang have been the most destructive influence on our domestic & foreign policy. We will be paying for their failures for years. The only good thing is that we know when their time will be up! With bin laden we know what we are dealing with while with Bush-Cheney the surprises never cease.

By Willie

July 12, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

10,000 times more intelligent and ethical than Bush/Cheney. Tanned. Rested. Ready. NIXON in 08!

By Bob

July 12, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

You’re not Scooter Libby, are you? Even Cheney has given up the WMD schtick.

By Scooter

July 12, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Why can’t you address the question Bob?

Would a “neutralize” man expend the necessary energy to corrupt a humanitarian program for his own people?

By silver

July 12, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

The source of all terror in the middle east is israel - the selfishness of jews from around the world in demanding a jewish country in the middle of arab land, and at the heart of the islamic religion is beyond belief. Harry Truman said it best when he said jews were a very selfish bunch. Today, they have hijacked america into fighting a war in iraq, preparing to fight another war in iran, and oh yeah, america should do syria and pakistan too. Meanwhile, the jewish financial boys in new york are busy borrowing our pension money to buy corporations, and hey if the deal fails, they lose nothing. Of course we lose our pensions. Just follow kkr, black heart, et al, and imho you will see the looting of your pension plan.

By SD

July 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

The girl in left side of the picture looks a lot like the new slimmed down version of Chelsea Clinton I saw the other day. So now we know where she has been the past few years. Cool.

By Bob

July 12, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Scooter, When I said “neutralized,” I meant neutralized in terms of waging war and mass murder. Neutralized as a threat to the U.S. Was he corrupt?-you bet. So would you invade every country run by evil, corrupt leaders? Might have your hands full there. Meanwhile bin Laden runs free.

By EW

July 12, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Oh come on now, if we’re multiple choicing here you have to give us some of the worthless Dems up there also. The current Democratic held Congress has their share to blame too. Your bipartisan stance is just too frigging much this time. The entire Congress is like a stinking toilet that needs flushing. When we don’t have twelve million illegals running amuck in the US, then blame who you want, until then…..flush all the terds, one stinks about as bad as the other and they all come out the same hole.

By Scooter

July 12, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Bob, you continue to ignore the documented intent behind the corruption. You seem to believe the best thing to do was continue kicking the Saddam can down the road until Saddam made his intentions become a reality.

Have you ever cared about the UN’s humanitarian program being corrupted at the expense of the poor Iraqi children?

Funny how Nancy Pelosi can say in 1998 that ‘Saddam has WMD’s and has made a mockery of the inspection process’. Soon after that the inspectors are removed from Iraq and will not return until Bush starts “saber rattling” some 4 years later. A couple of years after we are in Iraq Pelosi and others show support for the troops by saying Bush lied them into war. The dems then ignore her conflicting statements in order to promote her to Senate Leader and the loyal followers follow. I guess duplicity is more appreciated in the dem party than it is in the republicrat party.

Sooner or later this nation will realize whacking moles doesn’t address the underlying causes of terrorism. Freedom and representative government will, over generations of course.

Be well Bob.

By Bob

July 12, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Scooter, Give it up. Almost everyone was wrong about WMDs. The problem is Bush acted on the suspicions without any proof, diverting valuable resources from the real war on terror. Remember, “bin Laden - wanted dead or alive?” What happened to that. So where are we almost 6 years after 9/11? Stuck in a quagmire in Iraq while al Qaeda is stronger than ever. I find it hard to believe that you think this is a good thing.

By Bob

July 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

It’s nice that Mr. Bush is still confident about Iraq, telling us on Tuesday: “I strongly believe that we will prevail.”

Apparently, we’re doing almost as well today as we were in October 2003 when he blamed journalists for filtering out the good news and declared: “We’re making really good progress.”

Then in September 2004, Mr. Bush assured us that Iraq was “making steady progress.” In April 2005: “We’re making good progress in Iraq.” In October 2005: “Iraq has made incredible political progress.” In November 2005: “Iraqis are making inspiring progress.”

Do we really want to continue making this kind of inspiring progress for the next 10 years?

By Scooter

July 12, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Be well Bob.

By Gretchen Wingert

July 12, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this

Without a doubt….the “Decider, Commander Guy” and “Darth Cheney”. What a mess they have made!!!!!!

By Bob

July 13, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

Scooter, Bye. Sorry to confuse you with facts. You can go back to listening to Rush, Coulter, and O’Reilly.

By gtengineer

July 13, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

well thats certainly a rhetorical question. Bush has set this country back 10 years, right back to when his daddy got through ruining the economy. except this time around he’s destroyed our reputation, recruited masses of radicals against us, and started wars we can’t win.

bin ladin is a bad guy, but the over whelming winner is bush/chenney by rolling back things like womens rights, desegregation, endangered species protection, science and evolution teachings, condom use, abortion rights, stackin extreme right wacko’s in the supreme court who fight for corporations to have a free reign of terror.

we are now seen as the enemy in the worlds eyes with our secret torture prisons, we are no longer the land of the free, no longer the epitome of equal rights.

countries like canada are now more “american” than america. please congress remove this criminal!

impeach this criminal for our childrens sake!

By Don S.

July 13, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

So what if Saddam had wmd. So do we. Look what we did with them. What makes the U.S. any better than another country? BUT, he did not have wmd and he was faking things to keep his neighbors at bay. This country is responsible for 100,000’s of deaths. The people responsible for 9-11 are still out there. And we had a warning that they were coming. I’m a Republican and am sick of this belly aching by the conservatives who are blind to the truth. Remember, the people of Germany blindly followed their leader in the ’30s and ’40s. Look where it took them and the rest of the world. Don’t b*** when somebody has the brains to speak out against the leader.

Don S.

By Don S.

July 13, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

So what if Saddam had wmd. So do we. Look what we did with them. What makes the U.S. any better than another country? BUT, he did not have wmd and he was faking things to keep his neighbors at bay. This country is responsible for 100,000’s of deaths. The people responsible for 9-11 are still out there. And we had a warning that they were coming. I’m a Republican and am sick of this belly aching by the conservatives who are blind to the truth. Remember, the people of Germany blindly followed their leader in the ’30s and ’40s. Look where it took them and the rest of the world. Don’t b*** when somebody has the brains to speak out against the leader.

Don S.

By Scooter

July 13, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Bob, you are truly a character.

Don’t you have some of my questions to address? After all, I addressed yours, so shouldn’t you extend the same courtesy?

By lowell reeves

July 16, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Bush-Cheney. For trampling rights due each and every citizen of this land or others in the name of war on terror.

By Randy

July 17, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

Your question is designed to divide us, because the truth is that the Bush/Cheney Administration has done more to harm the country. To say that sounds unAmerican, but it’s true, so I guess the truth hurts. Let’s get smart again in this country and do what’s in our best interest (e.g. leave Iraq to the Iraqi’s).

By Trudy

July 17, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

bush-cheney have done FAR FAR more damage to this country than bin laden. tens of thousands of people have died and more are suffering because of these criminals.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century~!

July 17, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

-=-

everyine looks at just Iraq’ - and see’s a very narrow perspective of the world events.

Bush/Cheney - (Rove, Scooter, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, and teh rest of teh think tank gang) have destroyed our credibility world wide. They have done more harm to this country than any enemy could have. Now we face a new cold war with Russia, we face the cost of financing and upkeeing Iraq financially out of ourtaxes for years to come, we face health care decline in this country, and may other issues because of this aggressive and uncontrolled administration that was nation building. It has and will cost this country both money and lives for many years to come.

By Lynn

July 17, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Bin Laden just gave Bush/Cheney an excuse to get into a war with Iraq, which they had been planning all along, even before their election. They continue to try to link 9-11 with Iraq even though we know there wasn’t a connection. They are both guilty of high crimes and need to be impeached for the sake of our constitution, and everyone, even the republicans, know it.

By One Voice

July 17, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

bush & cheney, hands down, have been worse. They’ve sent more Americans to needless deaths, they’re in the process of bankrupting the country, they’ve pandered to their rich cronies while putting the middle class at ever-greater disadvantages, etc. It will take decades to undo the damage these incompetents have caused.

By Jlt47

July 17, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

Bin-Laden killed over 3,000 of our citizens, Bush and Cheney have been responsible for almost 4,000 of our citizens, thousands of innocent Iraqiis and if that weren’t destructive enough, they are tearing apart the Constitution as well.

No Contest

By DaveC

July 18, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Whoever caused this dramatic and disturbing graph showing the cumulative number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the start of the war:

http://carlsondr.googlepages.com/home

PS: This graph could be worked in to a dynamite political ‘cartoon’.

By Legare Nadelman

July 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Definitely Bush-Cheney. They have diminished our country in so many ways. The very things that have made us a great and well respected nation, such as integrity, truthfulness, fairness, etc. seem only to be impediments in the way of the Bush-Cheney “machine” - make that “money making machine.” Bin-Laden’s attack could have been a moment in time affair that garnered us many supporters; instead the bungling of the response by Bush-Cheney has ruined our relationships with many former allies.

By Jimc

July 18, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Definitely dumbya/cheney. Bin Laden got us one day- those psychological misfits get us every day- now 6 years plus. On the bright side though- I have to thank God or Mendel that I’m not one of the dumb s** still backing those bozos- I never did.

By Jimc

July 18, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Scooter Your brain is defective .See if your buddy Shooter Cheney can get you one of those battery operated ones.

By hewhoasks

July 19, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

The US has the FISA court. One of the things the FISA court oversees (if it is used as it was designed) is overseas call monitoring. Anyone, terrorist or not, knew and knows the US monitors calls: that’s why the US has the FISA court. Revealing that the administration wasn’t using the FISA court didn’t let the terrorists know anything they didn’t already know. It did, however, let the people know that Bush was lying when he claimed that warrants were requested and issued before wiretaps were done. That lie was intended to deceive the American people, not any terrorist. Bush chose to go against the law - bin Laden didn’t force him into it. Bush has contempt for the laws of the US, the Constitution of the US, and the people of the US.

By hewhoasks

July 19, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

The US has the FISA court. One of the things the FISA court oversees (if it is used as it was designed) is overseas call monitoring. Anyone, terrorist or not, knew and knows the US monitors calls: that’s why the US has the FISA court. Revealing that the administration wasn’t using the FISA court didn’t let the terrorists know anything they didn’t already know. It did, however, let the people know that Bush was lying when he claimed that warrants were requested and issued before wiretaps were done. That lie was intended to deceive the American people, not any terrorist. Bush chose to go against the law - bin Laden didn’t force him into it. Bush has contempt for the laws of the US, the Constitution of the US, and the people of the US.

By Debi Feistkorn

July 19, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

No contest, Bushy-Cheney win hands down. Those two are the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Bush is Bin Laden’s secret weapon. And Cheney should fly the skull and bones outside the home he thinks he has so cleverly hidden from view.

By Debi Feistkorn

July 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

No contest, Bushy-Cheney win hands down. Those two are the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Bush is Bin Laden’s secret weapon. And Cheney should fly the skull and bones outside the home he thinks he has so cleverly hidden from view.

By Gordon

July 20, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

The fact that the question is even asked and apparently taken seriously by many people shows how far off the deep end the left has gone. You’ve simply lost touch with reality, now 6 and a half years into an 8 year temper tantrum. I’ve never seen such mindless ranting in my life. If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be entertaining.

By JAYBIRD

July 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Bush/Cheney by far. They have done more for Bin Laden and Al Quadea than they have for our country, even going so far as to give Afganistan back to the Taliban, while opening up another front for Al Quadea in Iraq. They are torturers and war criminals and should be impeached, but impeach Cheney first, please.

By Concerned

July 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Bin Laden by a land slid.

By tarheel fan

July 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

David Vick

By Anonymous

July 23, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

Terrorists can only destroy lives and property.

It takes entrenched Washington cowardice to endanger our liberties, as BushCo has done. That’s by far the greater threat to our nation.