Will the new government have any effect on GA?

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.


"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...
| On Nov 13, 2:49 am, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Iran has won, why
| would they change now?
|
| Iran is in its present position of strength (but not by a
long shot
| could it be called a winning position) because the Neocons
decided to
| go after a man and a country that presented no real threat
to the US.
| The idea that Saddam Hussein (an atheist socialist!) could
have even
| wanted to help Osama bin Laden (a religious fanatic) is a
joke that
| only the Neocons didn't get. Ironic, but true.
|
| They ignored Iran (already presenting a threat - its
nuclear program is
| not new) and North Korea (ditto), and put 90% of the US
military's
| might into Iraq (with disastrous consequences for all
involved, but
| that's another story). Any 2nd-amendment-supporting
red-blooded
| Americans who supported the invasion and occupation of
Iraq need to
| re-examine their (no doubt default) patriotism, because
going into Iraq
| was _not_ in the best interests of this country -
economic, diplomatic,
| military, or otherwise. We've succeeded in weakening our
military
| position in the world, we've alienated allies, we've
****ed the
| national budget, and we've left ourselves exposed to
nuclear threats
| from countries that we could've taken care of in a second
if we hadn't
| wasted all that time, money, and human life in Iraq.
|
| Could bin Laden have wished for anything more? If what the
Neocons have
| done isn't treason, then nothing is. George Bush may as
well have taken
| a list of demands from bin Laden, bowed his head, and
said, "It shall
| be done."
|
| Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous
and
| soon we will have a real world war being fought with
nuclear
| weapons and chemicals.
|
| That's not true - terrorism hasn't won. What would it mean
for
| terrorism to win, anyway? True, bin Laden has played Bush,
the Neocons,
| and the right in general like a piano and gotten much of
what he
| wanted. But you can't argue that you haven't lost any
rights and say
| terrorism has won - it's a contradiction. You've got most
of your
| rights, and you're right in believing that the fact that
you're a white
| male protects you from the consequences of the rights you
are losing.
| Unless a white male does something really stupid, like get
caught
| fighting alongside the Taliban, there's no way the US
government will
| lock him up and throw away the key. Only a major change
will threaten
| your inalienable right as a white male to be given
preferential
| treatment by the US govt. But you're arguing that a major
change is
| happening.
|
| So maybe you _should_ be worried.
|
| Marc
|