*(continued from http://nub.wakachan.net/b/res/3065.html )*
>This is when he gives press conferences, which is about once a year.
Bush speaks to the press more than once a year. For pete's sake, he was participating in presidential debates a few months ago.
>They actually pay people money to bullshit in the press.
If you're talking about the recent payoffs to black conservatives to promote some law or other, I agree that that was fishy, though probably not a direct action of Bush.
>Read the Patriot Act, and its proposed followup.
The PATRIOT Act was passed almost unanimously by Congress, and therefore also not directly Bush's action. A great deal of it has or will soon "sunset," and Congress doesn't seem all that interested in renewing most of it anyway.
>the overturn of Roe v. Wade would mean one does not, in the eyes of the law, have the right to privacy in one's own body.
One's rights end where another's rights begin. In this sense, abortion already is illegal de jure.
>The Republicans said the Democrats were out-and-out traitors who were actively attempting to help the terrorists.
Some Republicans said that, yes, because some Democrats go out of their way to impede every anti-terrorist step America attempts. And some Democrats spew equally hateful speech, such as that the war in Iraq was only for oil, that it was a "distraction" in the war on terror, idiotic nonsense such as Muslims/Arabs don't want freedom or the chance to vote, etc. Again, "the other guy is wrong" is politics, and surely not unique to Bush or the Bush administration.
That's what is commonly referred to as "intention", not "actual results".
I think those examples you provided are more of a PR tactic than any REAL support. Saddam just wanted to look cool to those who hated the US and the jews. Real support for terrorism is not something you do openly and brag about, and it also includes actual SUPPORT to TERRORISTS, not just giving money to widows. That's just begging for sympathy.
Well, it's not like the result was unexpected by anyone except apparently the invaders themselves.
> Well, it's not like the result was unexpected by anyone except apparently the invaders themselves.
Maybe the invaders had reasons to believe the outcome would have been worse if they had not have invaded. Ever thought about that?
What, because Saddam would have used weapons of mass destruction?
In a sense, yes. But I believe his WMDs to have consisted of desperate and willing humans more than ABC weapons.
There is no way in hell to run a successful PR show for convincing your citizens of the need to perform mass post-natal abortions on a huge foreign reservoir of soldiers, though.