Riiiight... because if you don't think that the Bush Administration is an evil terrorist regime that murders thousands of its own citizens in a massive conspiracy, you're a Bush-lover, eh?

Me, I choose to criticize Bush on things that *actually are his fault* like the botched Iraq War and the lies leading up to it, the failed War on Terrorism campaign, most wasteful spending ever, erosion of Constitutional rights, destruction of civil liberties, denying gays equal rights, tearing down the wall of separation of church and state, ignoring the immigration crisis, the culture of corruption, refusing to replace incompetent staff (Rumsfeld, Chertoff, etc.), his failures in Katrina, and generally ruining America's image around the world.

If you want to say Bush is a bad President, which we all know he is, why not say so using arguments that are legitimate like the ones listed above, instead of making up far-fetched, unfounded, and clearly wrong accusations of Bush being the true mastermind behind 9/11?

It's like when the Soviets accused Hitler of being part Jewish. The irony behind Hilter being part Jewish while in turn trying to exterminate them is like the irony behind Bush being the biggest terrorist in the world while trying to hunt them all down. It's an ad hominem attack; just say your opponent is evil, a terrorist, Hilter, or whatever else works for you and you don't have to *actually* put effort into making an intelligent argument.

Also, do you honestly think that Bush is so clever that he could pull off 9/11 without word ever leaking out that it's his work? So much of his dirty laundry has been leaked (Valerie Plame, NSA wiretapping, Iraq intelligence lies, Abu Ghraib, etc.) and if he was truely behind 9/11, don't you think that there would be AT LEAST some kind of memo been leaked by now?

Get Cloned.