Yabby what about George Bush's "New World Order" caliphate? Which despot would you choose?

Arjay, I remind you that when Bush took over, Clinton had the
place in reasonable shape, with a budget surplus. 8 years later,
Bush had nearly totally crashed the economy and nearly bankrupted
the country.

The man had trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
But he did have a clever strategist to convince the masses to
vote for him twice. Such is democracy, its not perfect, people
pay the price, when they get it wrong, as they did with Bush.

Today Bush tends his roses. Rather then any global conspiracy,
more like Bush-the man who ruined America

*Osama bin Laden*

Does that mean *Osama* the son of *Laden?*

Yabby,
the masses didn't elect Bush in 2000 and 2004. In the first election the Supreme Court intervened in an unprecedented way and stopped the recount for Florida where there had unquesitonably been elctoral fraud. In 2004 it was done by fraudulent voting machines. It has all be documented in Mark Crispin Miller's book.
As for the global conspiracy, in my view it doesn't matter who the presidential candidate is. The candidate is chosen by the money men and the people's role is merely to ratify their choice by marking the ballots for one or the other. The election of Obama provides no clearer example of how meaningless the choice really is. His policies are distinguishable from Bush's: they are in many cases worse. See Tariq Ali's latest book The Obama Syndrome.

*In 2004 it was done by fraudulent voting machines.*

James, if the evidence is so clear, given that the Democrats
are loaded with lawyers, no doubt they could have shown it to be so.
It never happened.

Fact is Karl Rove was an expert at pushing the emotional buttons
of the religious right, some of the trailer trash and others.
Just enough to get Bush over the line. America has paid a huge
price for that.

As to Obama, I've seen plenty of interviews with Tariq Ali and I have
yet to see where he understands economics. No, he's not going to
adopt Ali's politics, why should he?

Given that getting anything done in the Congress is a bit like herding
cats, Obama has done an outstanding job with the resources available
to him. He's a realist, you work with what you have. He also realises
that America has to innovate its way out of the hole that Bush dragged
it down into.

He's winding down Iraq, so not a problem there. Handing Afghanistan
back to the Taliban is not a sensible option, so Obama is trying
the Petreus option, he did pretty well in Iraq, whilst Afghanistan
was being ignored.

Meantime Obama is thinning out Al Qaeda and the Taliban leaders with
drones and now the daring shooting of bin Laden, plus a huge
treasure trove of data and computers which will set them back for
years. He's doing pretty well really

Yabby you are believing the lie.The USA and Britian have found no Alqaeda in Afghanistan.According to Benazir Bhutto and many others Bin Laden died in 2001 probably of renal failure.He was a very sick man.

You seem ot believe the fiasco of his latest demise.No body,false photos released and then retracted,no DNA,caught alive,assassinated and promply buried at sea.For the USA to have the high moral ground they should not have killed Bin laden.he should have stood trial.Nota Bene.The FBI have never wanted Bin Laden for the crimes of 911 since they still do not have the evidence.

James O'Neill,the truth movement will not give up.This is a do or die exercise.