Somebody should arrange an Anti-Bush Flashmob, and storm all his public talks..
Would love to see 100 mimes miming "Impeach Him!", "Worst President Ever!" etc.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
"Where is your criticism of the Bush administration?"

Are you kidding? The sift and many other places are literal hotbeds of 24/7/365 distilled anti-Bush venom. The Bush bashers don't need me to add my voice to the chorus. I'm no fan of Bush and his 'new tone' crud, or his pathetic big-government policies. But who is?
I understand your point Pennypacker, and youre right, the point probably is moot on a site like this. For what its worth I didnt mean to imply that I wanted you to simply step in line with most of the others on here and bash bush, join in the chorus, whatever. What I was trying to voice was that its seven and a half years later, its really easy to be angry about a lot of things these days. My frustration is that those that are supporting McCain and still supporting Bush seem incapable of seeing the EXACT same faults that they see in nonrepublicans, in their candidate of choice. The hyporocy is maddening. I'm not looking to make another democrate or republican I just with there accountability for actions and faults on both sides. It just came accross like you just another hardcore republican who would never budge on any subject. If you had come accros on the liberal side I would like to think that I would have given you a hard time just the same, that is I at least try to be an equal opportunity naysayer. I appologize for assuming and if I dumped unfair frustration on you I again appologize.
As for the video heres how I see it. Neither of the two candidates are "ready" or "qualified" to be president. No one ever is in my opinion. It does no good to slander a persons past on either side becasue that point is moot as well. McCain has been in the Senate for a while, so, that just means hes qualified to hold position in the senate. Same for Obama. In 2000 there was actually a chance that I would have voted for McCain had he won the nomination, but I don't trust him anymore. In my eyes he has completely sold out for votes, if he truly believes what hes saying now he needs to give a better explanation for why other than what we've already been hearing for the entirty of the Bush administration. On the other hand obama isnt ready either but I trust his sincerity. Frankly I dont know what else to go on these days. Theres obvioulsy more to it but this is already long.
hope that helps/clears things up. I look forward to butting heads again in the future.

"Where is your criticism of the Bush administration?"

Are you kidding? The sift and many other places are literal hotbeds of 24/7/365 distilled anti-Bush venom. The Bush bashers don't need me to add my voice to the chorus. I'm no fan of Bush and his 'new tone' crud, or his pathetic big-government policies. But who is?

I'm going to cut this off when the World Socialist website goes heavy into the socialism:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/impe-j12.shtml

"House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush
By Patrick Martin
12 June 2008

In a display of parliamentary maneuvering that combined cynicism and cowardice, Democratic members of the US House of Representatives voted unanimously to kill an impeachment resolution against President Bush introduced by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Kucinich himself participated fully in the farce. He introduced the resolution Monday and read out the 35 articles of impeachment for crimes ranging from the lying pretexts given to the American people for the war in Iraq to torture at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and illegal domestic spying. Then he moved to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman John Conyers has long rejected any effort to hold Bush constitutionally accountable.

The 251-166 margin of the vote, held on a roll call Wednesday, saw all 227 Democrats—including Kucinich and his lone co-sponsor, Robert Wexler of Florida—joined by 24 Republicans move to dispose of the resolution. Voting against were 166 Republicans, who sought to force a debate on impeachment for the purpose of embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership.

After Kucinich introduced the measure Monday and spent more than four hours reading the entire text into the Congressional Record, House Republicans utilized a parliamentary provision to force the clerk of the House to read the text out loud all over again on Tuesday, consuming another four hours and keeping the House in session until after midnight. The purpose was to rub the Democrats’ noses in their own refusal to take action to back up their occasional bursts of anti-Bush demagogy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

A public vote in the House of Representatives would, however, find a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress siding with Bush against the sentiments of their own constituents. The Democratic leadership seeks to block any vote to conceal as much as possible their role as the last line of defense for the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds. They are well aware that the adoption of an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial, would deal a major blow against the White House as an institution and undermine the legitimacy of all Bush’s actions as “commander-in-chief,” especially in the war in Iraq.

It would also inevitably raise the question of who in Congress was complicit with Bush’s criminal conduct over the past seven years—tarring Democrats as well as Republicans, since a majority of Senate Democrats and a large number of House Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Many other actions listed in Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were given near-unanimous support by the Democrats.

More fundamentally, the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party and it seeks to uphold the authority of the bourgeois state..."

bourgeois, stop.

Still some valid points though - rare you'll see me agreeing with that site, but there you go.

its xenophobia parallel to blaming all the problems of Germany circa 1930s and WW1 on the Jews.

Did someone say "Godwin"?

I happen to think thats a bullshit "law" anyway, but you brought it up. Lets go to 2008 instead then, do I think every member of the cult of scientology are either evil manipulating money-grubbing scammers, or batshit crazy movie stars? No. But scientology is crazy. its an evil scam man-made for all the usual reasons, money and power, and the world would be better off without that kind of nonsense. Islam is the exact same thing. It is totalitarian, intolerant, primitive, organized fascism. It thrives on ignorance and discourages education, and promotes indoctrination in its place. This is why my Godwin is appropriate and yours probably isnt. (I dont know much about Wilders, and I expect I'll probably disagree with him on many things, but comparing his little movie to Nazi germany's relentless propaganda machine is probably stretching things just a little.)

Its so much easier to say its the evil muslims!!!111 then saying perhaps our foreign policy with regards to Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq is and was deeply flawed.

Thank you for walking right into my anticipated criticism and mistaking my opposition to Islam as opposition to muslims, basically by quoting the claim I described as "stupid shit like that".

Also nice on your part to assess that since I "hate all the evil muslims" I automatically see every foreign policy decision the USA and Europe has ever made as absolutely flawless. Guess thats where my hundreds of anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war posts come from.

For clarification, unlike Geert Wilders, I am not frightened shitless when I see the "Number of muslims" counter in my country sky-rocket, I consider myself a world citizen, and place or culture of origin of the people around me means close to nothing. What I care about is whether people and society have to suffer. I dont want to live in a theocracy, I will stand up for the rights of women to wear whatever the fuck they want, and eat in whatever restaurant they want. And our press to print or publish whatever the hell they want. As long as these things are guaranteed for everyone, Islam or scientology, or nazism can be whatever the hell it wants to be for all I care.

Why one of the likes of BillO here would deliver such an anti-Bush statement veiled in extremely thin sarcasm OR indicate that he is complete tool is beyond me.

Oh, wait, there's also the third possibility, which, according to Occam's Razor is the right one: BillO must be using ganja.

>> ^BillOreilly:
That was still a better speech than anything Obama has ever come up with...

Be *banished. Four fucking posts? Go the fuck away. VideoSift doesn't promote anything. If you would have taken the time to fucking notice, most people here are anti-Bush, even it's (correct me if I'm wrong, Dag) creator. That, and you can't down vote ANY video as a new member.

Hmmm... I don't know Doc... given that these warnings come from MEMRI & DEBKA, I think they should be taken with a large grain of salt, those organizations are just about as biased as any founded by former Israeli intelligence agents can be... and DEBKA, is itself run by and fed information by members of the Israeli military... their material is interesting certainly, but oftentimes not much more than unfounded rumors.

That whole strategy outlined (the second one, about participating in US based forums) seems aimed to only discredit any sort of anti-Bush or anti-war discourse that takes place on the interwebs... sowing the seeds of doubt if you will, planting in your mind the question that perhaps that genuine American who is upset with the way their country is being run is actually a jihadi... frankly I wouldn't listen to them, polls taken within this country by creditable organizations suggest that there is already enough genuine dissent by real citizens that any concerted efforts by al-Qaeda to spread dissent anonymously on internet forums would be kind of pointless.

As for the first part, the declaration of a digital jihad, well, we shall see what happens on Nov. 11th, as I'm not totally conviced that al-Qaeda is comprised of L33t HaX0rs... in fact, I'm fairly certain that up until this point they haven't really operated in such capacity... but who knows, there is a first time for everything.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, very polished and Charismatic- and a Masters in International Relations. He's the Anti-Bush.

I may not nessicarally agree that Al Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize (yes, it's a Prize not a "Prize") however I cannot agree with the outlandish statment that the Prize is given to Anti-Bush/American people. Al Gore is trying to do something about Global Warming. Al Gore is concerened that the lives of all the people on the earth are in jeporady and is activly campaigning to do something about it.

By logical reasoning, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize by lobbying to potentially prevent the needless death of every American. How anti-American is that?

Surprising? No. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a masked vote for the continuation of the BS we currently see with the Bush Administration. Don't believe it? Fine. Many didn't believe my anti-Bush views and war predictions prior to Bush's first election. Lets see what happens now.

"oh, and bill, iraq was secular, had running water, electricity, and a middle class. four steps back is not one step forward."

Word, Iraq was a great place to live. The Iran-Iraq War, Persian Gulf War, chemical weapons, torture and killings of civilians, executions for "treason", I'm sure the middle class was really something to behold... Don't you kids ever study history? Ever? Do they not teach it in schools these days? Or is it just the Videosift anti-Bush kids that conveniently forget everything pre-George W?


"Tony Blair was not as bad as Saddam"

Really? Are you sure?

^yeah, cuz we all know conservatives are geniuses! Look how awesomely they're running our country!

And by the way, I'm as anti-Bush and anti-American foreign policy as anyone can get, but his is bullshit. The only stupid people are the ones who actually believe this represents the majority of Americans. I can go to any country and make a video like this.

i thought that was a fairly elegant way of saying "bush is a nazi" and I wish more anti Bush speakers would take a piece of this guy's style into their repertoire.

"most american citizens will be more than pleased to hear of his death, because it will satiate their need to fill some void after 9/11."

"but the american public just doesn't realize that."

Which american public are you guys talking about? Sure isn't the one I know. You've got to read a bit more of freely spoken word and watch a bit less Fox news.

If that's too taxing, you could just drive down our streets and see the anti-Bush placards everywhere, damning the man for ~3000 dead and an unjustified war no one wanted.