Comments on Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools

A slick

piece of writing.

posted by malcolm on March 23, 2006 at 8:49 AM | link to this | reply

Pat B,

the 2004 election did not validate the 2000 one, but it did make Mr. Bush the unambiguously legitimate elected president as of 2005.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with these electronic voting machines that do not provide paper receipts, which could theoretically be tampered with. But as of now, whatever happened in 2000, Bush is legitimately the president.

It would be nice to think that a majority of the American people were wise enough to vote for the alternative in '04, and that the only thing that stopped us having the right president was a scheming group of Republican vote-machine makers.

Unfortunately I am fairly confident that a slight majority really did vote for Bush. The good sign is that most would not do so if the election were held today. (His approval rating is about 35%.)

posted by Dylan24 on March 23, 2006 at 8:24 AM | link to this | reply

Wow,

all the paranoid little fuzzy hairs on the back of my neck just stood up...  Even though this is not exactly a revelation :)  BTW, GWB was not elected by a majority in 2000 -- he was appointed by the Supremes. And they still haven't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Florida's election results were accurate, in case anybody's interested in beating that dead horse. 

posted by Pat_B on March 23, 2006 at 7:46 AM | link to this | reply

Mr. Palast has a very good handle on the complexity of the issue.

The normal criticism from the left, in the U.S., is that the Bush administration were incompetent. There still seems to be a wealth of information to suggest that.

However, that does not mean the Bush team is not very competent at pursuing their oil interests.

posted by Dylan24 on March 22, 2006 at 6:29 PM | link to this | reply