Good things Bush has done
Politics August 20th, 2003 |Daily Kos is trying to come up with three good things Bush has done, and he’s having problems. I can’t come up with three — I can, however, come up with one. Here’s the text of comment I left over at the Go Fish:
Believe it or not, I do have one thing that I can completely seriously thank Bush and his administration for.
Thanks to his blundering incompetence, many people (myself included) are paying far more attention to politics than we used to. Bush’s otherwise disastrous presidency just may be the single strongest argument for people to actually wake up and pay attention to what’s going on in the world around them and to try to do something about it by getting involved than any ad campaign, voter registration drive, or anything else in years. More and more people want Bush out of the White House, and are realizing that for that to happen, they actually have to participate in this democracy of ours. And for that, from the bottom of my heart, I thank President Bush.
<
p>But that’s all I can come up with.
[See also: Registered to vote? Are you sure? | In the not very distant future… | I just don’t get it. | Get involved! | Gonna need a really big mop… ]
August 20th, 2003 at 11:37 am
OK, I’ll buy that. Except I’m still worried about the people who are unconcerned. I want to be proven wrong in a massive way in the next election.
August 20th, 2003 at 11:58 am
I liked the comment one Kos reader left about one good thing Bush has done:
choked on a pretzel
I still think he failed at the task - perhaps he should try again, this time with some real feeling. This is one area I’d like to see the whole administration work on together - I’m sure they would get some excellent results.
August 20th, 2003 at 12:55 pm
How sad.
November 3rd, 2003 at 4:17 pm
Yes, your are right it’s not good to liberate a country, to stop massive killings from a leader.
It is not right to protect our country.
…..Your blind.
November 25th, 2003 at 5:45 pm
I think Bush has made many mistakes, like a lot of presidents, and at least he is trying to do what he thinks is right. Its not like his whole idea is to kill the whole world (and act like Hitler like many ignorant people have been saying), he is just doing what he thinks is right. And seriously, I think that he is starting to straighten up his stuff, like with the medicine for senior citizens. He is trying to get a bill through Congress that allows loswer priced medicines to compete against Medicade. A lot of people want him out of the White House, but really what has he done? Yes, he got us in a war too quickly (where war would have been the last option), but the whole reason why we even went into Iraq, a lot of people don’t know this, is because we gave Iraq so many months to let us come in and check everything out (we are like the World Police) and they wouldn’t let us in. We gave them months to let us in and they just wouldn’t. And people are saying that we haven’t found any chemical weapons or whatever, and its not because they might not have had them (I’m not saying that they absolutely have them) but they could have smuggled them out of the country by then. I don’t agree with everything Bush does, but I understand why we went into Iraq.
December 9th, 2003 at 10:39 am
$87 Billion for blowing up a third world country.. thats really saving them from mass killings?… whos blind here? And who stoped America when we were raping, and killing THOUSANDS!!! of blacks, and how about when America came and slaughtered MILLIONS!!! of peacefull Indians? Nowbody saved them. now im not saying that the people of Iraq should suffer, but how about $87 billion for education in Iraq? Let them learn for themselves that they are oppressed. And im sorry any president GOP DEM IND WHATEVER!!! who has the GAULL!!! to push any peice of legislation that gives the government the power to take away US citizenship is completely unamerican, and unjust, and just to make sure it has a cherry on top its called the PATRIOTISM ACT!!!
December 9th, 2003 at 12:17 pm
Omg STFU ADAM. Go live in some other Country if this one is so bad. Ass wipes like you make me want to get sick. This is the best country in the world to live….Just look at all that we have. Sure we are not perfect, but we are the strongest country in the world and we have to act accordingly. As for your dumb ass black comments,…GET AN EDUCATION. They came to us selling their own people. So I don’t want to hear all this crap…this is the best country in the world and we should all just be happy to be here
December 19th, 2003 at 7:59 am
Well… I believe people need to stop living in the past and wake up to the future . For our President to care enough for the Iraqy people is amazing. The 87 billion will get paid back to us. They needed help and we came to there rescure. How would those people know what is best for them if all they have ever known is hate and dirty leadership! I feel that Bush is a gr8 president and people need to stand behind him and thank him for doing such an honerible deed! The people of Iraq had no future, and Bush is re shaping a lost country. I feel we need to stop bitching and start thinking of ways we could help those in need!!! Kathryn Ley
December 19th, 2003 at 10:39 am
Well, look, everything that Bush has done so far has worked. I admit I don’t care for him that much, but he is doing a pretty good job. The Iraq invasion did eventually lead to the capture of Saddam, and his economic policies, such as tax cuts are now leading to growth. There is no real reason to get rid of him at this point. Just stay the course with Bush, and then bring someone new in in 2008.
December 20th, 2003 at 4:06 pm
Oh mi gosh, I never realized this before! Without his increasingly obvious stupidity to the public, I don’t think politics would have been so attention-grabbing for me!
That’s so funny!
January 13th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Why Iraq? Why not any of the other half dozen countries that suffer under a tyrannical leader? It couldn’t be because the Bush Administration has vested interests in Iraq, could it? OUR noble, brave, heroic president leading thousands of American troops to death for his own profits? Noooooo. And remind me again how we moved from Al Qaeda to Irag in the first place. Wake up people. I don’t think any one of you can give coherent reasons for why we chose to “liberate” Iraq over North Korea, who pose a bigger threat, or Libya, whose people live in much more dire circumstances. Bush himself hasn’t been able to and so faces international ridicule. So good luck trying to come up with reasons yourself. And are you even aware of the environmetal atrocities he’s been doing on the side? He’s opened up more of the national forest to logging and development than any other president, He’s reduced factory emissions monitoring after promising to increase it, and he’s currently proposing legislation that will move the expenses of cleaning up factory and chemical spills from the companies who cause them to the taxpayers who suffer because of them. Yes, we do live in the best country in the world and so we should have some fucking say in what happens to it.
January 26th, 2004 at 5:03 pm
A few important things to remember: 1. The iraqi’s are glad we took out Saddam, but majority of the country wants a theocracy, certainly not a westernized democracy. 2. Any way you look at it, Saddam was a psycho, and in my opinion, just as bad as Hitler. Someone had to take him out lest he kill off his own people and then go for someone elses. 3. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not in league together, nor do they even agree on anything. BL= Islamic Fanatic SH=Secular Dictator 4. 28000 Iraquis have lost jobs since saddams fall, and another 5000 at least have lost their lives. Our cluster missiles suck and are extremely inacurate. 5. Bush is a loser and a born again christian.. but not a nazi. STFU with that crap.
February 4th, 2004 at 6:06 am
THere were no weapons. Why did we go
February 4th, 2004 at 11:08 am
Revolution Vol. 2
1) They bombed innocent people, tryin’ to murder Saddam When you gave him those chemical weapons to go to war with Iran This is the information that they hold back from Peter Jennings Cause Condoleeza Rice is just a new age Sally Hemmings I break it down with critical language and spiritual anguish
2)Conservative political right wing, ideology Glued together sloppily, the blasphemy of a nation Got my back to the wall, cause I’m facin’ assassination Guantanamo Bay, federal incarceration How could this be, the land of the free, home of the brave? Indigenous holocaust, and the home of the slaves Corporate America, dancin’ offbeat to the rhythm You really think this country, never sponsored terrorism? Human rights violations, we continue the saga El Savador and the contras in Nicaragua And on top of that, you still wanna take me to prison Just cause I won’t trade humanity for patriotism
3)Fighting for freedom and fighting terror, but what’s reality? Read about the history of the place that we live in And stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children
4)And they refuse to even mention, European intervention Or the massacres in Jenin, the innocent screams U.S. manufactured missles, and M-16’s Weapon contracts and corrupted American dreams Media censorship, blocking out the video screens A continent of oil kingdoms, bought for a bargain Democracy is just a word, when the people are starvin’ The average citizen, made to be, blind to the reason A desert full of genocide, where the bodies are freezin’ And the world doesn’t believe that you fightin’ for freedom Cause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demon
5)The fourth branch of the government AKA the media Seems to now have a retirement plan for ex-military officials As if their opinion was at all unbiased A machine shouldn’t speak for men So shut the fuck up you mindless drone! And you know it’s serious When these same media outfits are spending millions of dollars on a PR campaign To try to convince you they’re fair and balanced When they’re some of the most ignorant, and racist people Giving that type of mentality a safe haven We act like we share in the spoils of war that they do We die in wars, we don’t get the contracts to make money off ‘em afterwards! We don’t get weapons contracts, nigga! We don’t get cheap labor for our companies, nigga! We are cheap labor, nigga! Turn off the news and read, nigga! Read… read… read…
February 6th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
First of all, is it so much to ask for you people to use coherent sentences? I can’t understand half the bullshit you Bush-haters pulling out of your asses. Secondly, the fact that Bush has the balls to go into Iraq in order to save millions of lives by taking out one of the most vile dictators in history is pretty commendable. Yes, there were innocent lives ended, but George Bush is not the monster that too many people are making him out to be. He is a human being just like you and me. He has the same emotions that we have. And don’t even think about telling me that he isn’t. If that’s what you really think then you have some serious issues.
As for the weapons. These are the facts: 1) George H. W. Bush Sr. went into Iraq based on intelligence that it was developing Chemical and Biological weapons. 2) Bill Clinton BOMBED Iraq based on intelligence that they had already obtained Chemical and Biological weapons and were in the process of developing Nuclear weapons. 3) The same intelligence that was used for the past 10 years was used this past spring in order to stop Saddam from becoming one of the most serious threats to the world since Adolf Hitler.
The weapons were there. They have been there for a decade. Why they aren’t there right now is another question. Here are the possibilities. 1) They were destroyed to prevent a U.N. act against them (not likely considering who Saddam is) 2) They are still in Iraq and we just haven’t found them yet (possible but not plausible) 3) They were sold to the highest bidder (also possible)
No one has ever doubted the fact that the weapons were there until Bush Jr. went into Iraq. Why did they choose to start now? Because they don’t like Bush. No other reason than that.
February 7th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
Robsix and Robert Robert — I’m afraid I just accidentally deleted one recent comment from each of you while taking care of accidental duplicates. My humble apologies!
February 9th, 2004 at 6:14 pm
First of all, everyone needs to stop getting so angry when discussing this topic. I really don’t know why politics get people so enraged. If someone has another opinion, read what they have to say and see if there is any truth or fact to the statements. If there is, then you learned something, if not, it is not necessary to blast them with “I told you so” statements. Instead, re-educate them on their innacuracies by educating them on the truth.
On Bush:
The fact is, people are basing the opinions on Bush from the information that is learned from one source. “MEDIA” If one really digs into the things Bush has done, a person would see some good and some bad things that he has done. If a person looks into the history of any President that we have had in the last 20 years, they will find the same thing. Many things that were good, and many things that were not so good. This is because Bush is Human my friends. Being the President of the United States of America would be no easy task. Many educated people are bringing issues and intelligencec to the Presidents desk every day. The President doesn’t tackle the entire U.S. problems on his own. He has people bringing him stacks of paperwork to his desk containing issues and choices to make. The President has to sort out the best he can and make the best judgment he can on many issues and some wind up doing good, and some wind up causing some grief. However, He is helping keep us safe. I was happy to receive the extra 500.00 tax credit per child thanks to Bush. I spend a lot of money keeping my daughter healthy, happy, well fed and educated. It was nice to see Bush understood our hardships and gave us some reward for that effort. There was many tax benefits for 2003 tax filers thanks to Bush. Senior Citizens who no longer have the larger checks they received when they were working can now benefit by having cheaper medicine thanks to Bush. Bush knows the Children are the future. The “No child left behind” should never be condemned. The U.S. can’t afford it, that is correct, but we also can’t afford not to. We cannot throw our children to the curb beecause we are indebted. They are one of our top priorities. There are many other things, but too many to list without boring everyone. Just do this everyone, check out the facts! Yes some of the things you will find aren’t going to shine like a chrome bumper on a 1955 chevrolet, but again.. Bush is doing the best as “Humanly” possible with the information he is given day to day.
February 9th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
Thank you Mark. I do apologize for the harsh words, and you’re right: there’s really no reason to get upset about this topic. Unfortunately, there are two things in today’s society that ignite the most serious conflicts: religion and politics. Personally, I sometimes find my personal beliefs threatened when someone makes a crack at my religion. I suppose the same can go for politics. After all, your political views are nothing short of your own personal values manifest in a social institution.
And as for your political remarks, I think they are the most honest and accurate views of any president to date. Well said.
February 17th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
How can you possibly think that No Child Left Behind is good for this country? I myself am just a student so i do not follow politics nearly as much as everyone here. My opinion about politics isn’t much either, but this No Child Left Behind is just crazy. It is making teachers only teach the tests. My mom is a kindergarten teacher, they have to have 50 sight words memorized by the end of kindergarten. She has recently decided to go back for her masters, and is with teachers that have been told by the principle that they have to teach JUST the test to the students or the school will be closed because it is not to the standards. I have talked to many teachers about this and none of them think it is more helpful then hurtful to the studends. But remember, I am still a student and haven’t read deep into this, this is just what I have seen in school. I would please like to hear about how you feel about this idea.
February 17th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
How can you possibly think that No Child Left Behind is good for this country? I myself am just a student so i do not follow politics nearly as much as everyone here. My opinion about politics isn’t much either, but this No Child Left Behind is just crazy. It is making teachers only teach the tests. My mom is a kindergarten teacher, they have to have 50 sight words memorized by the end of kindergarten. She has recently decided to go back for her masters, and is with teachers that have been told by the principle that they have to teach JUST the test to the students or the school will be closed because it is not to the standards. I have talked to many teachers about this and none of them think it is more helpful then hurtful to the studends. But remember, I am still a student and haven’t read deep into this, this is just what I have seen in school. I would please like to hear about how you feel about this idea.
February 17th, 2004 at 5:13 pm
So after this post, i started reading up on this. I went to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html and just started reading the whole night. Some of this stuff is just not able to happen. How are “dissadvantaged” (mentally handicapped) students suposed to meet the same grading scale as the people that are taking hard classes and getting straight 4.0’s? Please post your thoughts.
February 17th, 2004 at 9:59 pm
Mom and I were talking about the NCLB issues over this past weekend, and she pointed out something that I hadn’t stopped to think about before. Mom and Dad still live in Alaska, and through the church and friends are in contact with a lot of Alaska Natives who live out in “the bush,” the outlying communities and towns in Alaska. Native culture is very strong outside of the few large(ish) cities in Alaska, and the NCLB act just plain doesn’t work in such an environment.
Firstly, in many of these communities, children are brought up speaking their native tongue, which is generally any one of a number of Alaska Native languages, and often don’t start learning English at all until they start school. Yet, by the standards of NCLB, they are required to take the same tests and are expected to get the same results as children across America who have grown up speaking English as their primary language.
Secondly (and in some ways more interestingly to me), the standardized tests required by NCLB are so standardized that they incorporate many built-in assumptions about the communities and lifestyles of the students taking the tests. This is causing a problem for many of the native communities in Alaska, when rather than growing up in city suburbs, shopping in malls, riding in buses and cars and so on, many Alaskan children grow up in towns with populations that number in the tens, are more familiar with going whaling and hunting for their food and clothing than shopping at grocery stores or malls, receive their mail weekly or monthly when the mail plane stops by their community, and so on.
In short, the cultural divides between the “middle America” that the NCLB standardized tests are written for and the isolated, rural towns and lifestyles of many (if not most) Alaska Natives are so great that there is essentially no way for the NCLB act to do any good at all, and it is more likely to do great harm if a disparity in scores results in penalties and withdrawal of funds for the schools in the bush.
February 18th, 2004 at 1:09 pm
My mom also pointed out that each state chooses the literary level. Like where I live, in Iowa, it is at 80. In Alabama it is 20. How is ths going to be able to help minimize the “gap” between students from all of over the United states? This act is suposed to have students be smarter when they go to college. So by having the state choose the literary level it makes a bigger gap for each state. So when these students are starting to go to college there will be a big difference in their grades. When they take entrance exams, the schools will probably be able to tell what state they are from. Then there is the assessments, these are posted publically and are also viewed by race, gender, and socio-econmics (how much money the family has). Thanks for the post about Alaska. Mind if I get permission to use that in my report?
February 29th, 2004 at 4:36 pm
Is it really so hard to understand? You can’t possibly expect any policy or act in the government to be perfect for every single American. Maybe you should look at the bright side of things instead of constantly degrading every idea. Peter, maybe NCLB isn’t what’s wrong with your mom’s school. I think it’s the school’s problem when they decide that they will only teach to the tests. I came from a very fortunate community. Of course we had standardized tests. Everyone had standerdized tests. If your school is below the appropriate level for the tests, then you SHOULD teach to the tests because that’s really the only way to pick up the school and move it forward. If you’re above the level of the tests, then you don’t really have to worry about them and you can just go on teaching with the safety of knowing that by teaching advanced material, the basics are reenforced. If your mom’s school is told to “teach to the tests” then either they haven’t met the required standards or they have a very inefficient system of teaching.
As for Alaska, my opinion is that if you want to be an active member of America and the government, you better know english. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t also learn their native language, but to deny them the language that they need to know in order to function the easiest in continental U.S. society is foolish.
If your school isn’t up to standards with the tests, then maybe you SHOULD teach to the tests. If your school is above the standards, then you really don’t need to worry about the tests, and if you’re still being told to teach to them, then you need more intelligent advisors. If you live in America, you should speak english. NCLB just makes sure that everyone is on the same page when it comes to what children NEED to know.
February 29th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
that’s weird….I don’t remember clicking twice….
but while I’m at it….Peter….next time you want to comment on an issue, read up on it FIRST and then make your own decisions. Think for yourself next time.
February 29th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
Crazy Liberal Idea #1 - Bush-is-a-moron.
Crazy Liberal idea #2 - Bush is a puppet
Crazy Liberal idea #3 - Bush is a fanatic.
Crazy Liberal idea #4 - Bush is another Hitler, but not as talented.
Crazy Liberal idea #5 - Bush isn’t protecting the American people.
Crazy Liberal idea #6 - Bush wants to bankrupt the government.
Crazy Liberal idea #7 - Bush is a cowboy.
Crazy Liberal idea #8 - Bush is a liar.
February 29th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
W.2004
February 29th, 2004 at 5:39 pm
In just three years, Bush has led the U.S. MILITARY into two wars, ousted two of the world’s most barbaric regimes, redirected U.S. foreign policy to confront the threat of rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction, daringly embarked on a campaign to introduce democracy into the Middle East, and reconstructed both the military and the executive branch of government.
He shoved two huge tax cuts down the throats of a Congress that traditionally has preferred to spend the people’s money rather than permit then to spend it themselves, and in the process revived an economy that began to slump at the end of the Clinton administration.
The List Goes On.
W.2004
March 12th, 2004 at 7:55 am
this sucks bush should be throwen in jail. who does he think he is making all of these cuts when he is on his ass doing nothing! My point is bush sucks!!!!!
March 12th, 2004 at 7:57 am
I think we should all just get a long in this world fighting world of ours. Think of what happend in WW1 and WW2 that is nothing compared to whats happening in Iraq. Let alone the holocaust. Even though Bush is not a good president hes doing the best he can, how would u feel if u were the president of the United States. Think of all the pressure that is on ur shoulders. I think some 1 else should be president since bush sucks.
March 15th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
To the peoplewho think Bush nothing; He help liberate a country that had known nothing but hate fear and pain for 30 years He Made it known we don’t tolerate terrorism unlike the spinless presidents who came before him he were all talk. he may have done some things wrong but he tried. All those critisizing, you think you can do better? You don’t want to know what this man has to deal with. He has a hard time sleeping without worring about the cristsism of people who have no idea what he encounters, you couldn’t stomach it.
April 17th, 2004 at 10:38 am
So you are saying that Bush Senior was spineless? Or George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Bush even said that there were no proof of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So everything Bush told us before the war was a lie and that alone should get him impeached. It is a good thing that Iraq has been liberated but that was not why we went to war was it? We went to get terrorists and we devastated a nation on a lie.
April 19th, 2004 at 10:45 am
Here is something I found from the “Weekly Standard.” Dated November 24th 2003. An article titled “Case Closed” by Stephen Hayes. From this article we know (that means it’s an indisputable fact) that Saddam’s lieutenants held regular meetings with bin Laden and his emissaries from 1990 all the way through the period immediately before the American invasion in 2003. CIA reports from 1993 reveal that “bin Laden wanted to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq” and that Saddam’s vice president and other intelligence officials met with Al Qaeda leaders in Baghdad, Sudan, and Afghanistan in 1998 and 1999.
Is that not enough evidence to support the use of preemptive force against an evil tyrant who funded terrorism?
And if that’s not enough, here’s an excerpt from Sean Hannity’s book “Deliver us from evil.” His sources are two articles. One from the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2003 titled “Iraq’s future lies in secrets of its skeletons.” and an article from the Wichita Eagle on May 15th, 2003 titled “Mass Graves in Iraq unearth anguish.”
“The Iraqi regime was unimaginably evil. We know that he ordered the mass extermination of Shi’ite Muslims, Kurds, and other political enemies. We have found botulinum toxins, mobile weapons labs, and over 100 general munitions storage facilities in Iraq. We know that Saddam supported terrorism against Israel, among other nations, that he was capable of using Weapons of Mass Destruction against the U.S. and that he DID use them against Iranians and Kurds. We have also seen tapes of medieval torture chambers where unkown hundreds of citizens were raped.”
Is that not enough evidence to support the removal of Saddam from power? It’s obvious that the U.N. just wanted to sit back and let the resolutions run their course (which they have been doing for a decade with no positive result). Other nations had financial investments in Iraq (Russia, France, and Germany). So if no one else was going to help us take out this evil tyrant, were we just going to sit back and hope for the best? NO! We were going to go in there and do it ourselves! We are responsible for our own security! We don’t need to beg other nations to help us, we can do it ourselves! And if no one else is going to help, then that’s exactly what we should do.
April 21st, 2004 at 6:29 pm
I was just wondering if anyone against Bush had stopped to consider the fact that maybe Bush had other motives for going into Iraq, other then finding weapons of mass destruction. people don’t understand that when someone like Saddam is in power and he is killing his own people, he won’t just stop there and other countries can’t sit back and watch it happen. We tried it in WW2 with Hitler and that didn’t work out to well did it? Now that we have Saddam, we can’t just leave, we have to finish what we started. And another thing, the people out there who think 9/11 is all Bush’s fault and are whining about how he didn’t do anything about it although there was really nothing he could do since our military and defense were extremely weakened from our previous president, he is fighting terrorism now and you are still whining. I find that kind of odd.
April 21st, 2004 at 9:57 pm
Hi it’s me again.
I almost forgot something.
If you don’t like Bush, that’s fine. I can accept that. But what I refuse to accept is voting for someone like Kerry or Nader only because you don’t like Bush. That kind of sentiment is dangerous and closed-minded.
If you don’t vote for Bush, that’s fine. But at least have a good reason for voting for the other guy.
My beef with Kerry is that he’s a waffling pig-headed jerk who couldn’t lead a starving wolf to a flock of sheep. I do have facts to support that opinion, but I won’t post them unless someone asks (otherwise I’d be getting even FURTHER off the topic of this chain).
All I ask is that you vote for the BETTER man. Don’t just vote for the “other guy.” So do some real research on the two candidates and see which guy’s plan you think would work better. I did that for Kerry, and I got an informed opinion out of it. You may find that Kerry is better (to which I say “good for you; go ahead and vote for the guy”). But if you’re just going to vote for someone because they aren’t Bush, you are making out of our electoral system and you are desecrating the democracy that we are trying so hard to protect.
That is all.
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:36 am
Bush is doing the right thing by trying to contain the threat of terrorism in the middle east. Starting with Iraq, we are trying to eliminate tyranny’s and weapons. All those people out there say “there are no weapons” don’t you think they could smuggle them easily to Libya, or Sirya? It could be done so easily….use your head, think with your brain not with your “anti-war bullshit” support bush in 2004
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:42 am
kill those shitbags
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:43 am
shoot them before they shoot us
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:43 am
shoot them before they shoot us
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:44 am
hey daniel this class is boring
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:47 am
shoot them before they shoot us
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:49 am
was there much of a choice for us to enter this war? you want more americans to die like in the trade center.NO.But then you say “anti-war” blah blah blah, but then it happens again, and you bitch about how we did nothing don’t contradict yourself you fucking morons…
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:53 am
are you people st-st-stupid anti-war if for people who are scared
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:56 am
smoke weed everyday
April 23rd, 2004 at 6:57 am
anybody else wanna take a hit
April 24th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Name one United States President that was perfect and that nobody could complain about. And while your thinking about that, you might be thankful that you have the right to complain about your leadership and not have to look over your shoulder at night worrying about someone taking retribution to you comments.
April 25th, 2004 at 4:28 am
I think that Bush and his cronies should have their citizenship taken away from them for acts terrorism against the Iraqi people for oil profits. They should also be put in jail for lieing to us. I knew they were lieing anyways. Because I knew they were going to Iraq for the oil. The media has successfully brainwashed the American people into thinking that Iraq was a terrorist state. The simple minded are easy to fool. Americans are viewed as stupid by the rest of the planet and the media knows how easy it is to trick us. If you support Bush then you should move to another country. This country is for democracy loving Americans only. Educate yourself and wake up……
April 25th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Tommy, I’m sorry you feel the way you do.
There is no conspiracy behind the media. If anything, they would be dying to get their hands on information about secret oil profits from the war. Reporters and news companies are always looking for controversy. Just look at how focused they were on the whole Monica fiasco when Clinton was in office. There is no nation-wide cover-up. I cannot see how anyone in their right mind can make such a claim. How can you have such a hatred for Bush that you cannot even use your common sense. That kind of hatred is dangerous. You would rather make a claim with absolutely no reasonable basis than give the President of the United States one shred of confidence. I don’t like asking this question, but I can’t help myself right now: What the hell is wrong with you?
Second, do you really think that this war was over oil? I find that hard to believe when OPEC is now RAISING fuel prices. If this war were really over oil, wouldn’t it make sense that our fuel prices would be going DOWN?
But no. You’re just an overly paranoid twit who can’t accept the fact that a man that you absolutely HATE has actually done something worthwhile.
And I do see an paradox in your last little burst of vehement ignorance. “Educate yourself and wake up…”
If you relly think the media is one big lie, how can you educate yourself? If any research at all is nothing more than the world’s largest cover-up, how would you know what is true? You seem to know the answer, and I’d love to know your little secret. Since we all have it so wrong, and you seem to think you have it all in perspective, what are we missing?
I’d love to go on, but I don’t want to bring you to tears. So I just have a few questions for you: 1) Do you hate George Bush? 2) Do you hate Saddam Hussein? 3) Do you hate Saddam more than you hate Bush? 4a) If yes, why are you so upset that the man you hate more is no longer torturing innocent people? Shouldn’t you be more upset that over 250 mass graves have been found in Iraq? 4b) If no, would you rather have Saddam Hussein as our President than George Bush?
Think about it. And feel free to post again in response; I’d love to know how you feel about this.
April 28th, 2004 at 8:45 am
Come on!
I agree with you Aaron I’d rather have bush as president…
About the weapons of mass destruction. If saddam didn’t have them, he could have got them. Imaging just one icbm (Intercontinental Balistic Missle) A few Nuclear Reactor rods and nuclear radioactive waste. Then if he launched it over here we could have millions dead on this side!
April 28th, 2004 at 8:45 am
Come on!
I agree with you Aaron I’d rather have bush as president…
About the weapons of mass destruction. If saddam didn’t have them, he could have got them. Imaging just one icbm (Intercontinental Balistic Missle) A few Nuclear Reactor rods and nuclear radioactive waste. Then if he launched it over here we could have millions dead on this side!
April 29th, 2004 at 5:01 am
Come on!
I agree with you Aaron I’d rather have bush as president…
About the weapons of mass destruction. If saddam didn’t have them, he could have got them. Imaging just one icbm (Intercontinental Balistic Missle) A few Nuclear Reactor rods and nuclear radioactive waste. Then if he launched it over here we could have millions dead on this side!
April 30th, 2004 at 6:12 am
Sorry about the tripple post.
Think about this. Bush has started to restart the econemy. It is slowly picking it up. If we chnged to Kerry right now we’d be weakened for terrorists to attack. Didn’t 9/11 happen right after Bush entered office? It was becuase everyone was figuring out who he was gonna have as council members! If we change now we’re gonna suffer from a terrorist attack!
April 30th, 2004 at 8:20 am
I can’t really agree with that. I don’t think we should fear change. We should embrace the concept of change IF IT IS APPROPRIATE! The fact is, Kerry does not have a better plan than Bush. Kerry’s plan is to do NOTHING unless we have all of the U.N. with us. That’s dangerous. Kerry is afraid of acting alone and he cannot take a stand unless there are people there to back him up. That is the major difference I see between the two candidates. And that is the most important thing to remember during this time of war.
April 30th, 2004 at 12:41 pm
yea, a war that bush started and one that will never be won. there is no way in the real world that all of terrorism will be wiped off the face of the earth. thats just plain stupid. there are measures that can be taken, of course, but intimidation of the world is not the right one. i would venture a guess and say that all the people who supported this war are nothing but hypocrits. most of you would have been satisfied with iraq being blown off the map. none of you are humanitarian in the least bit. so give me that bullshit about us liberating a people. you know you really dont give a shit. dont make excuses for bush. and what is so wrong with going to the UN for support. how long can u expect the united states to be #1 if we do whatever we want whenever we want with 8 nations behind us at the start. that is what is really dangerous. before we went into iraq, a lot of the world didnt hate us, as you would assume by what you see in the media. but going into iraq with hardly any backing from the rest of the world only created more animosity towards the US.
bottom line is that bush screwed up big time in iraq and a poll just recently taken in iraq (a nation-wide poll) says that most people in iraq want US and British troops out. i say we leave. bush cant say that or he’s not getting re-elected. as he shouldn’t. since “the end of this war” there has been nothing except controversy around this war and the “war on terror” has come to a complete hault. this war on terror is a fad, just like any other period in history. now dont get me wrong, i think a war on terror is a good thing. bush is not the man for it. he should go back to owning the texas rangers. maybe he might be able to handle that.
May 9th, 2004 at 10:12 pm
In conclusion, I seem to see a pattern here. No one seems to be able to refute anything that I say on this blog even after I ask them to. I don’t want my ego to get TOO big, but if you really do disagree with me (with FACTS and not just your loud mouth) PLEASE post or even E-MAIL ME! I would LOVE to continue this topic on a more personal and independent medium.
May 9th, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Gerald….I am thoroughly disgusted by your last post. Here’s a few specifics.
“There is no way in the real world that all of the terrorism will be wiped off the face of the earth.”
I agree. I also agree that there is no way that we can remove crime from our society. But what you are suggesting is that since we cannot get rid of it….we should not fight it. Is that to say that since we can’t get rid of crime, we should not have any police force to fight it? I think not.
Second: The U.N. is a governing body who’s job is to keep peace on this world as best it can and preserve the betterment of mankind. But what about when they don’t do their job? For instance, when 3 of the major world superpowers (Germany, France, and Russia) have personal financial and military interest in Iraq that they do not want disturbed by a war - and they let these interests interfere with the betterment of Iraqi society and world peace - they are not doing their job.
Third: Right now, Iraq is not stable (nor would any country be after regime removal). With this in mind, you want to leave? You want to leave Iraq and its people with nothing? Pardon my french, but are you fucking crazy!? You want to leave them out to dry, and yet you say things like “none of you are humanitarian in the least bit.” And THEN you go so far as to call ME a hypocrite!? I think we can see a clear credibility gap here.
Fourth: Have you ever heard of NATO? NATO is in Iraq with us. Almost all of it. This is not a one-country fight. Which brings me to:
Fifth: America was just the only country with enough balls to go in there and kick out Saddam. The man was evil, and he had to go. I wish tyranical dictators could be negotiated with peacefully, but they cannot. We have seen that through Neville Chaimberlain trying to negotiate with Hitler, and Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate with the U.S.S.R. It just doesn’t work.
Sixt: As for the WMD’s, we had no reason to believe that they WEREN’T there. Everyone said he had them. He USED them on his own people! Even Kerry said he had them.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03
Finally: I’ve addressed this before and it is extremely important. THIS MUST NOT BE IGNORED!
THE MOST DANGEROUS SIGN OF IMPAIRED JUDGEMENT!!!!!
Do not confuse what you WISH to be true with what you KNOW to be true!
I don’t care how much you HATE Bush. But to say that Iraq is worse off now than it was under Saddam is just wrong. You can WISH all you want that Bush finally did something evil, but you should KNOW about what Saddam had done to his own people. You better KNOW that over 250 mass graves have been found in Iraq. And to ignore those facts just to politicize a war is DANGEROUS! STAY TRUE TO WHAT IS TRUE! Do NOT ignore that which you KNOW to be true just so you can take a cheap shot at BUSH!
May 9th, 2004 at 10:20 pm
Over 800 US soldiers killed. 10,000 Iraqis dead (probably more)
No WMDs…
Yet, Has the war in Iraq been a total waste? You must ask yourself, what would have happened if we had not gone to war. Would the terrorists have stopped? Maybe. But most likely not.
Even this doesn’t justify the war however.
SO WHAT DOES?
If anybody would actually listen to the “idiot’ Bush’s speeches before the war, you’ll hear him say this:
“We must stop the Iraqis before they develop WMD capability”
and not this:
“We must destroy the Iraqi WMDs.”
if anybody wishes to say a reason why this war was not justified, or how we just went for the oil, believe me, I have an EDUCATED, LOGICAL reason why you’re wrong, not idiotic “rhetoric.”
Just remember this: “A sure sign a man is either lying or ignorant, is that he refuses to give his enemy any credit at all.” M. Ontko
May 16th, 2004 at 2:44 am
ddfgd
May 16th, 2004 at 10:33 pm
ok mr. mulder, i have some things to say to you. first off i wanna right my thesis statement here. from the comments u have written its clear that you think that i am some sort of a anti-republican bush hater who disagrees with everything bush does. that, although easily enough for u to say, is not true. i only diagree with most of things he does. so, whereas my comments were disgusting, yours were laughable at times. lets continue the point by point method you started. your first point was probably the most ridiculous. your analogy between cops and criminals and terrorists and war was weak and invalid. listen, the only people against cops are criminals. so by using yur extremely useful logic we come to the conclusion that the only people agaisnt this war are terrorists. wonderful, when do we attack ourselves then? not to mention the rest of the world. what u tried to pull there is called a weak analogy fallacy. and to begin with, i never said i was against the war in the first place. ill go into this later. yur next point was better, but still idiotic to say the least. yea yea, france and russia and germany and china can go screw themselves. but dude, dont even pretend that this war was a uniamously approved war. there was overwhelming oppostion in the UN. you third point i will give to you. i dont know why i wrote that, but in any case, i have since come to realize that we have to stay in iraq. but the mere fact that we need to stay there only tells me that bush screwed up. i, like everyone else, was under the impression that this was going to be a quick war, one that would show the power of the unites states and its allies. one where we would be in and out and the iraqis lived happily ever after. BUSH DID THIS! he decieved me and millions of others. yes, i know that we have to stay, but bush made his fair share of miscalculations as well. yur next point was stupid as well. yea, nato is there, but so what, us and great britain hold a very distinct majority of the troops over there. one country has already left, and more want to leave. don’t kid yurself, this was our war. next point i agree with. i dunno why u brought that up. whatever though, saddam had to go and he couldn’t be negociated with. good for you. im not disputing the fact that he had to go. again with yur next point u brought something up that i didnt say anything about or even allude to. this is what i was talking about with classifying me as some liberal hippie douchebag. wmd’s? i dont know if they’re there, i dont know if they’re not, i dont know if they’re somewhere else. for know, to say something that u dont know about yet is dumb. and as for kerry’s statement that somebody has shown me for the 300th goddamn time, i say to u I DONT GIVE A SHIT! i dont care what he said, he was just repeating what bush told him. and they may still be there who knows. stop putting words in my mouth and stop pushing yur agenda, its sickening. i dont know what the hell you were rambling about at the end there, but it sure seemed to me like u were assuming something about me. let me conlcude this for you. bush has not done anything to deserve my vote. clearly he dealt with iraq in the wrong manner. going into iraq to get rid of saddam was a good idea in theory. it has been the way this adminstration has handled that theory that has made me lose all respect for bush. IF HE HAD DONE BETTER I WOULD NOT BE WRITING THIS! but he screwed up, and he did so in such a way that basically is worthy of getting voted out of office to be replaced by just about anybody, be it john kerry or not (but it will be). ill give u a rundown of why he screwed up. he started a war that didnt need to be started so qucikly and rashly. he dealt with the UN and the rest of the world in such a manner that gave the unites states very poor PR. that was one of his biggest mistakes. he should ahve sent more troops in the beginning of this war. he miscalculated the amount of insurgents in the country. he made me think everyone in iraq hated saddam and would welcome the us openly and warmly. he is now probably going to send more troops because of the insurgents. the country is ont he brink of civil war. soldiers are tired after 10 months. the majority of the iraqis want troops out of iraq. the feel very strongly about their country and take great pride in knowing that its THEIR country. the reconstruction of iraq is in disarray (it is something that is much more suitable for the UN). in case you were wondering, we still have soldiers in afghanistan. 721 coalition soldiers have dies since the mission was accomplished according to bush. theres more. now on the good side, 200 or some terrorists have been captured by the FBI and and evil dictator was removed from his throne and a people were liberated. was it worth it, i dont think so. besides that, i dont agree with most of bush’s policies anyways. he is way too conservative for me. bottom line, he hasn’t done anything to get my vote and only deseved a vote for anybody else at this point. but theres still 6 more months left. my only hope to you aaron is that u realized that i thought the war in iraq was a good idea that was turned into a bad one by bush. he deserves to get kicked out. the end.
May 17th, 2004 at 2:51 am
well not quite the end. i would like to make a correction. instead of “was it worth it” i would like to replace that with “was it a success.” so substitute foe me there. gracias.
May 21st, 2004 at 2:54 am
I appreciate your post…..except for the fact that you changed entirely from the time you started typing to the time you finished. Lets start at the beginning:
“from the comments u have written its clear that you think that i am some sort of a anti-republican bush hater who disagrees with everything bush does. that, although easily enough for u to say, is not true.”
Now lets look at some fine examples:
“i dont agree with most of bush’s policies anyways. he is way too conservative for me. bottom line, he hasn’t done anything to get my vote and only deseved a vote for anybody else at this point”
And let’s look at your last post:
“i think a war on terror is a good thing. bush is not the man for it. he should go back to owning the texas rangers. maybe he might be able to handle that.”
You don’t like Bush. So don’t tell me anything different.
And as for your comments about my ideas:
“the only people against cops are criminals. so by using yur extremely useful logic we come to the conclusion that the only people agaisnt this war are terrorists.”
That’s not MY logic. That’s YOUR logic. Personally, I don’t believe that the only people who don’t like cops are criminals. Some people think the police department is full of donut-eating pigs who shoot anything that moves. Trust me…..I’ve met people who think that way. And besides, my point was that we can’t just sit back and let terrorist run free just because we can’t stop them all (a point that I am sure you agree with).
Your next observation:
“dude, dont even pretend that this war was a uniamously approved war. there was overwhelming oppostion in the UN.”
I never said it was unanimously approved…moron.
What I said was that the U.N. was not doing its job as a peace-keeping body by letting Saddam get away with building AND USING WMD’s. I’m sure you are aware of the oil for food scandal. And if you are not, you should do a little research. It looks like a few of the larger countries in the U.N. were pocketing a little extra cash from the oil for food program in Iraq. My point about the U.N. was that too many dominant countries had financial ties with Iraq that kept them from performing their duties as leading nations in the U.N. You agreed with my comments about France, Russia, and Germany. Tell me…if those three countries had not opposed the war in Iraq, would you still be whining?
And this probably took the cake:
“i, like everyone else, was under the impression that this was going to be a quick war, one that would show the power of the unites states and its allies. one where we would be in and out and the iraqis lived happily ever after. BUSH DID THIS! he decieved me and millions of others.”
And as for Bush misleading you….bullshit. If you’re too ignorant to know that any kind of military occupation will not be “in and out” then that’s your problem. No one ever said this was going to be quick and painless. Who ever said it was going to be a “quick war?” There is no such thing as a quick war…moron. I didn’t want it to come to this, but I’m going to do it anyway.
Soldiers in Iraq: over 130,000
Soldiers who have died in Iraq: 721 (according to you)
Percentage of soldiers who have died in Iraq: 00.5%
I don’t like making human lives into numbers, but I don’t see any other way to shut you up. This is not a catastrophy. We have more than enough soldiers in Iraq to carry out the rest of the clean-up mission. Are more soldiers going to die? I’m sure of it. Do I like that….no. But I can assure you that there would be far more lives lost under Saddam’s torture regime than under U.S. occupation.
May 22nd, 2004 at 10:42 pm
again, for some unknown reason you have chosen to discredit me by bringing up ridiculous examples. all i was trying to say is that i’m not anti-republican or a devout liberal. im middle of the road, granted, leaning left. if you pulled yur head out of yur elephants ass for a second or two, maybe u might see that. so i don’t like bush, eh? well guess what, your a bloody genius! yur right! i dont understand where there was any contradiction in my statements. i simple said im not an anti-republican bush hater, but be that as it may, i still disagree with bush and frankly i think his ability to lead a nation is questionable. however, he has sparked my interest in politics, which was the beginning topic of this post i believe.
im not gonna argue the cops and criminals shit anymore. it was a damn stupid argument and to try to make me look like i dont care about crime by relating it to the war in iraq was pure retardation. and yur point to go after terrorism i agree with and i never said otherwise. i dare you to try and quote me where i said different. and dont try to use anything and put a spin on it either, but if u want, i will be glad to prove u wrong. (p.s. - i know what you’ll use if you do try).
you know, you tried to make it look like since those three countries disapproved of the war unjustly, that totally denounces the UN. that fact is, and im sure youve heard this, that everything comes down to the dollar; everything. united states included. i bet if u went through the history of the united states, it has done things that were probably wrong, but profitable. and the fact is that every country can play the pot calling the kettle black game with any other country today. as to your question of my reactment if those 3 countries hadn’t opposed the war, i can’t say cause i dont know. chances are that the liberal media would have found some dissention (cause there was plenty of it) anyways in the UN. and chances are that somebody would have found something to disprove them. and the never ending cycle of bullshit would continue.
as for bush misleading me, he did. when he gave his mission accomplised speech, i thought the war was over, AND SO DID YOU AND DONT SAY OTHERWISE. but apparently it wasn’t. we may not be fighting the iraqi army anymore, but fighting is fighting. and as for quick wars: ever heard of desert storm? yea, thought so. this fighting is different though. we aren’t fighting a country anymore. we’re fighting rogue ballsacks who don’t wear uniforms. when we went into iraq, we fought their army and kicked their ass, and when bush gave his speech, i thought it was pretty much over.
now we get to your much regretted, but just couldn’t resist figures. 721 have died SINCE THE END OF THE WAR. less than 200 actually died during the war. “the war” part of the iraq war was highly successful as far as military casualities for the coalition is concerned, and as far as everything else is concerned as well. dont get me wrong. it has been the aftermath of this war that has really bugged me. 721 soldiers dead when theres no official war!? (not that the iraq war was an official war itself) come on, thats not a tragedy to you? it most certainly is a miscalculation of this administration.
and finally, this has probably bugged me the most about the people that are still feeling good about this war. the thought and debate process has suddenly changed from a year ago. a year ago i heard “iraq poses a threat to the united states security” and “they have weapons of mass destruction” and “saddam is linked to al-queda” and in the distint background i heard something about iraqis being oppressed. now all i hear is “oh, well, they have been liberated and……ummmm…..saddam was a dick…..and…..ummmm……they have been liberated.” now thats all fine and dandy, but 2 years ago while we were fighting afghanistan, nobody gave a shit about the oppressed peoples of iraq. even today, nobody wakes up and thinks to themselves, “wow, im sure glad all those folk in iraq are under safe and sound u.s. occupation.” give me a break. be consistent oh mighty advocates of bush. if yur main argument for the war was that wmd’s were there when the war began, still argue that, cause it hasn’t been proven otherwise, right? it really bugs me; this shift it the debating patterns of the proponents of bush and the war. you can’t just argue something and then something else just because it suits yur republican partys agenda.
i don’t think bush is hitler. i don’t think the iraq people are worse off. what i do think is that bush has screwed up in the way he has conducted this war on terror, as i have said countless times before. where are we arron? where are we in this war on terror? we are stuck in iraq, thats where. do you think the people of the united states, and moreover the rest of the world, are going to tolerate the united states going to every country that “poses a threat”, take over control, try to instill a democratic society, and then leave troops behind for the insurgents? troops are going to be in iraq for a long long time, just like korea. is this the only way our terrorism policy has to be conducted? i don’t think so. i think the iraq war has shown that something needs to be changed. and if bush can show that, then i’ll more than likely vote for him.
and one final word: to anybody who says that people who disagree with the government should move to another country (not you aaron), shut the hell up! its our american right to say what we want, when we want, because its only in protest of our CURRENT government, not the theory of democracy that madison envisioned. we dont have to support our sitting president if we disagree with him, even in times of war. we must, i repeat, must support our troops, however. to all those people who DO say that, i say to you: you get the hell out of my country and take over another one, say like, boliva, and call it the united states of the ku klux clan. bite me asswipes.
May 26th, 2004 at 3:08 am
You are an angy, angry man. Let’s go through this again, only I’ll try to keep it short.
“when he gave his mission accomplised speech, i thought the war was over, AND SO DID YOU AND DONT SAY OTHERWISE.”
I am saying otherwise. I did not believe that we were finished. I did not believe that the war was over. We had not finished what the President had said we would, therefore it was not logical to assume that we would just up and leave the country. I did not, and still do not, believe that the speech he gave on the Lincoln was a good idea. This is because I knew people like you would be stupid enough to think we could just leave and forget the country.
“and as for quick wars: ever heard of desert storm? yea, thought so.”
Yeah…I heard about it. I lived through it. America never finished the job during Desert Storm. That’s why we are fighting in Iraq now. Quick war……you may think so. But if you ask me, it was never finished. Quick implies a beginning and an end. I don’t think we ever had an end to that one.
” a year ago i heard “iraq poses a threat to the united states security” and “they have weapons of mass destruction” and “saddam is linked to al-queda” and in the distint background i heard something about iraqis being oppressed. now all i hear is “oh, well, they have been liberated and……ummmm…..saddam was a dick…..and…..ummmm……they have been liberated.” “
If you look at all my previous posts you will see that I have always stayed focused on the war. I have never changed my argument or my position. There is documented evidence of the USE of WMD’s in Iraq. I believe there was an artillary shell filled with sarin last week that could have killed a lot of people had it been used properly. One of my previous posts quotes a few articles about iraq and its weapons. I have never swayed, and neither has Bush.
May 26th, 2004 at 10:46 pm
hahaha, well i’ts obvious that you have given up and theres no more fight left in you. that last post was a doosy, i must say. in my opinion you have lost your touch, what little u had to begin with, i.e.: “America never finished the job during Desert Storm. That’s why we are fighting in Iraq now.” wow, a conservative giving in so unconsciously to the idea that almost all liberals cried about to begin with: “george w. is just finishing his dad’s blunder!” thats shoddy work, really. as i have said before, it was a mistake on my part to say that troops should leave; my humble apologies. bush is still a queer. and bush has never swayed my ass, did u listen to his speech the other night? i did, it was pretty bad, he never says anything different and with no conviction. whatever, i never heard anything about wmd’s or al-queda, at least for the 10 minutes i watched him. hes really boring (but not as boring as kerry). well arron, its been fun! by the way, russia produces the most oil and saudi arabia has the most oil reserves thus far. iraq produces like the 8th most, however it does have the 3rd most amount of reserves. united states produces the 3rd most but doesnt have much reserves. the united states only counts on iraq for 5% of all its oil imports. facts my friend. alright, this will be my last post, so u can have the final word if u like. later.
May 28th, 2004 at 11:42 pm
I didn’t want to make too long a post last time because I wasn’t sure how much more of this you could take. But since you insist, here’s the last word.
The fight against the war in Iraq:
Liberals have 3 main points:
1) There were NO WMD’s in Iraq. 2) Iraq had NO ties to Al Qa’ida 3) America was too hasty in getting involved.
This is the last word. I will dispute these with fact. FACT!
1) We know that Saddam had WMD’s. We know that he used them. I find it hard to believe that he destroyed them all in compliance with the UN. Mostly because coalition forces have recently found two 150 lb. artillary shells filled with serin gas. These aren’t just bombs that militants make in their basements. These are weapons that were built to function as projectiles fired from advanced military artillary. The same shells that saddam told the world that he had destroyed. Each of these shells is capable of killing 2000 people. That means coalition forces have saved the lives of 4000 people. So coalition forces have saved over 5 times the amount of lives that they have lost.
Also, since the American liberation there have been mobile weapons labs found that were unaccounted for by Saddam, Botulinum toxins unaccounted for by Saddam, and hundreds of general munitions factories overlooked by the UN inspectors.
2) Proven ties to al Qa’ida.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp enough said on that topic.
3) 14 months is not hasty. Going to the U.N. and having them construct a resolution allowing the use of force in Iraq is not hasty. The only reason that the resolution did not pass was because it was vetoed by 2 countries that were being payed off my Saddam through the Oil for Food scandal: France and Russia. After putting up with biased opposition for 14 months, the administration decided that enough was enough. Citing information and intelligence spanning over a decade, Bush and his team proved their case to the world and went into Iraq for 2 reasons: humanitarian aid, and national security.
Humanitarian: Saddam was a murerous dictator. Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam.
National security: proven in points 1 and 2. WMD’s and direct ties to terrorism.
That is the last word. Unless you can dispute FACT, you lose.
May 28th, 2004 at 11:53 pm
Ya know what….I’m not done. I was trying to be reserved, but I’ve had enough of your arrogance. I’ve had enough shit from you. Here’s the deal: when you want to make a point, support it with evidence that helps your cause. Here’s an example of how NOT to do that:
“and bush has never swayed my ass, did u listen to his speech the other night? i did, it was pretty bad, he never says anything different and with no conviction.”
You dispute the fact that Bush never swayed by telling me that he “never says anything different.” Nice work….moron.
ok…next blunder of yours to rip apart.
“America never finished the job during Desert Storm. That’s why we are fighting in Iraq now.” wow, a conservative giving in so unconsciously to the idea that almost all liberals cried about to begin with: “george w. is just finishing his dad’s blunder!” thats shoddy work, really.
If you’d been listening to the President instead of ignoring him you would know that he does not approve of his father’s work in Iraq. George H.W. Bush did not finish the job. Instead, he let the precious U.N. fail miserably. And since Clinton didn’t bother to finish the job, George W. Bush was faced with the task. There’s nothing “liberal” about it except for the fact that you’ve ignored the facts and just went on your own prejudices…moron.
And your facts about oil? Well they just disproved the liberal argument that the war was all for oil, didn’t they? If America only relies on Iraq for 5% of their imports and Iraq is anything but the world’s top oil producer, then there’s not much use in going to war for oil, is there? No. There isn’t….moron.
So once again, I bid you good luck and I wonder how you’ll screw yourself over next time we meet.
Later moron.
May 28th, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Still not done. I forgot to add one thing.
You are a moron.
May 29th, 2004 at 12:02 am
STILL not done. I must say thank you Gerald for being the only one on this comment string to actually carry on an argument with me. Although you may not be the SMARTEST person I’ve argued with, you are definitely the most entertaining. So thank you.
And just for kicks, I looked this up.
Moron: A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
Congratulations! You have officially been offended!
May 29th, 2004 at 2:16 am
Aaron —
I don’t really mind you stating your point, vociferously if you feel the need. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from the pointless and juvenile personal attacks against people who disagree with you. Debate the pros and cons of Bush and Iraq all you like, I enjoy seeing the discussion (whether or not I agree with it). However, please do so in a polite manner.
This goes for anyone else who would like to chime in here also, for that matter — I only singled Aaron out because of the multiple posts, the last of which were nothing but a personal attack.
Thanks much for keeping this in mind. And with that — have fun!
May 29th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
Dually noted. I’ll try and keep my temper from here on.
August 9th, 2004 at 10:33 am
to Aaron Muldor, Just thought you should know that George H.W. Bush went to war with the Iraqis, because they were invading Kuwait. If it had anything to do with WMD’s, we didn’t hear of it.
someone who remembers
August 13th, 2004 at 7:52 am
….jesus…. a majority of the stuff im reading in this discussion is horrible….i believe we came here to discuss what was president bush doing WELL….i mean, i know everything that hes done wrong…everyone and their mother’s know what hes done wrong…if theyre educated, which brings me to my next point. the problem with opinion is between educated and non-educated opinion: people who are easily offended when someone talks against their beliefes and views in a certain subject, person, or idea is, for the majority, hands down uneducated, and look to solely discuss and argue(this group of people ranges from dilettantes to people who are full selfish intentions). educated people,(note:education pertains to a spectrum of things, such as values and morals, politics, government, and things of the like, and if you have a good balance of things, you’ll do well) however, look at both sides fairly, and understand contrasting differences between the partys, and instead of just arguing and discussing, they try to find a solution to the problem. now i know what you’re all thinking, that one decision cannot meet the needs of all citizens, but that is a fact, because the human race is an insatiable one. however, utopia can be achieved if people go out and get educated. im not saying that once that happens, bam, we’re all good, and thats it, but if you all want the human race to continue and flourish without erradicating itself, you gotta do it. and why can’t people get educated? theres a few factors: lethargy and poverty. why is this a problem? because half the nation doesn’t vote(lethargy) and if you don’t care, how can you expect people to change this nation? as for you who say politics is BS, i don’t blame you, cuz for the most part of it, it is, but this is a DEMOCRACY!!!you can go change something you don’t like if you don’t like it. the problem with democracy, however, in this nation, is that more than half of this nation doesn’t care(the voting age), so we’re all basically let the elitist few, or just people who get the lucky chance of winning an office with some sort of power, to do whatever the hell they want. my instructor said it best, apathy or action, it’s your choice. anyways, getting back to task, GB passed a bill finally giving the people over sees some money so they can finally drink,eat, and arm themselves properly. that is the only good thing that GB did for the better. then again, if u look at it educationally, we wouldnt be in this ‘war on terrorism’ if he didnt break the coalition in the whitehouse, break the coalition in the UN, break the coalition with NATO, didnt got to iraq for the sole purpose of catching his dad’s enemy(and US enemy…and with no proof), demolished education in the US….not a lot i can say is good. and if your one for patriotism, such as i, youll get the educated thoughts in your head, that patriotism does not mean partisanship. if you love your country, youll see that promoting your president who wants you to go fight for your country for no cause other than the damn manifest destiny is not kool. you cant fight terrorism with terrorism. we have so much crap in the US, so we should fix our nation first b4 attempting to OFFER other nations help, not force.ill tell you this much, bush was the man when he was gov. here in texas. he promoted minorities and women to offices, really tryed to promote education here in texas, although it couldnt happen under our current outdated constitution of 1876….so should you take anything from my opinion, take the right to go educate your self about politics, the past, history, all that.
August 13th, 2004 at 8:03 am
just wanted to add to my previous comment, im not a bush hater or advocater. i do dislike a lot of the things he does however.
August 23rd, 2004 at 5:19 pm
For Daily Kos, I am very disappointed in you! I mean you have a hard time coming up with three…three? good things about the president? Why give up so quickly?
Did President Bush quit when he didn’t win the popular vote? NO Did President Bush ever quit when he did not discover those WMD’s in Iraq? NO Did President Bush quit after he got a DUI for public drunkenness. NO Did President Bush quit after failing in all those businesses and losing all his friends’ money? NO Did President Bush quit when his oil company, Arbusto Energy, gained no success in the late 70s? NO Did President Bush quit when the Texas Rangers sucked horribly? NO Did President Bush quit when he had a “C” average on his report card and low SAT scores after graduating from high school? NO Did President Bush quit when he threaten to shut down the White House AIDS office? Pending… Did President Bush quit when he forgot to read the intelligence briefings which would have told him in advance about the terrorist atrocities that were to take place on 9/11? NO Did President Bush quit the Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, to reduce green house gases in our environment and possibly yield the seasonal shifts, preserve wildlife from extinction, save vegetation, stabilize temperatures, lower carbon dioxide levels, cool oceans, preserve glaciers, prevent wildfires, and any other signs of mother nature telling us that were going to a road of damnation? YES….wait…ah crap, scratch that. But did President Bush quit the killings of innocent people in foreign countries? NO (he brought them democracy down the barrel of a gun!) Did President Bush quit trying to take no notice of the 6th Amendment when dealing with POW’s? NO (What you do is you ship ‘em off to Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay and and exercise the right to good ol’ fashion sodomy. Who knew those communist would be good for something.) And did President Bush quit when he knocked up that one girl? You bet your sweet-anus he didn’t.
So….what was I talking about…oh yeah, out of all the bad days our spiritual, beloved Leader has had…has he ever—EVER—let us down? I mean look…all of our marvelous southern values have finally won. Who knew after all that trouble of the north winning the civil war, we would still have Black Americans living in the lowest slums of our country and neo-Christian conservatives running Congress. This just comes to show that with a little elbow-grease and a few piles of Kuwaiti and Iraqi corpses, as well as business dealings with major corporations, you can achieve anything you set your mind to.
So don’t you come to me and whine about having a hard time coming up with three good things about our GOP President! Here, I’ll start you off with some good ones…lets see…nice smile…that’s One…uh…spiritual…oh yeah, you gotta have that one if you wanna get those votes from those evangelist voters on your side…uh…talks like you and me…who ever said that not being articulate is a bad thing, I mean sure…if you misplace deflation and devaluation and temporarily ruin Japan’s economy, like that one time you visited, you could have problems…but hey…that’s why we got erasers on pencils (and black markers to censor books contain information you don’t want to slip out to the ignorant public. Oh yeah…and those tax cuts he does…boy do I love to see my benefits go down the drainer in order to pay peanuts for my country. I mean, I’m a hard worker damnit! Oh…and the Pro-Life support…no matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican…you can bet your ass we’re shoving our Catholic values down people’s throats and avoiding a woman’s right to choose…while we scratch our heads wondering what could possibly have happened to all of this over population dilemma.
So there.
There is no excuse to not come up with three good things about our President. Now go out there and tell you redneck hick of a neighbor to advocate “four more years!” Let all those liberals live in another land…they don’t appreciate this country like we do! USA USA USA!!!
September 9th, 2004 at 6:19 am
wow. I thought this thread died in May, but I suppose I could come back and post more thoughts.
Justaman, I agree with your thoughts on an educated public. But then you went ahead and posted (in my opinion) a very uneducated version of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
You didn’t even give a thought to reasons why the war in Iraq would be more helpful in the long run, and I thought that’s what you were supposed to do as an educated voter. Well I’ll help you out
First of all, the war in Iraq wasn’t only about WMD’s. WMD’s were the topic that required the most evidence to prove, and was therefore the topic of most focus. This biggest reason we went into Iraq is naturally the reason that required the least amount of proof, and thus, the least amount of attention in terms of media: humanitarian reasons. When hundreds of thousands of people are tortured and murdered by their own government, we have a problem. When a certain dictator publicly funds terrorist action against Israel, we have a problem. When the U.S. uses its patriot missiles to stop Saddam’s SCUD missiles from hitting his neighboring countries, we have a serious problem that can’t really be solved by sanctions. Afterall, this guy owned his countries entire fortune…so why would anyone think that economic sanctions would hurt one of the richest men in the world? Plus….he wasn’t even complying with the U.N. sanctions. So Bush decides that someone has to do something before its too late. The U.N. claimed that Saddam was a “gathering threat.” But not an imminent threat. So the U.N. (or rather France and Germany) decides to wait until he IS an imminent threat to do anything.
But why would anyone in their right minds allow this madman to continue his regime?[url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm]Money[/url]
Well….that’s the other side of the story. Now you can read both of our posts and decide what you believe.
September 9th, 2004 at 6:23 am
hmm….I thought it said HTML allowed. Well here’s the link without all the clutter. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
September 10th, 2004 at 10:21 pm
If this war is about removing a malicious, Hitler-like dictator, it has been finished already. Put your ignorant little minds at ease. “President” Bush made repeated assertions that he had “good intelligence information” that Saddam Hussein was up to no good and was arming himself (with weapons we provided in the first place, but were dismantled…hard to swallow for conservatives) ready to kill the American people. The “misinformation” of the WMDs came after, yet going to war on a hunch was alright with the now deceived and shooken-up public (from the 9/11 misfortune). After the embarrasing discoveries made while in war…the operation soon was focused on the “Iraqi Freedom” part (plan B…nice call). Well we sure are having an awful hard time pursuading those people that we’re the “good guys” (world police, remember that!)…it’s been, what, 1,000 dead up till now (not including civilians and fighters from the Middle East). With so many “evil-doers”, to put it articulately, in the world, some of which have done more crimes against humanity and have declared to have gone “nuculer” like Kim Jong Ill, we went after the shady, yet economically strategical one. Most answers now focus on how evil Saddam was, but Saddam was evil before the WTC attacks,and yet the nobody got “liberated” then…It’s strange how he was involved with terrorists and WMDs, as “intelligence” tells us, right after 9/11 though we had information on Iraq in 2000 from National Security Adviser, Ms. Rice, had no means of developing such weapons and that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. There is video and textual proof of this, but it probably wont matter to conservative fanatics to deep in stubborn beliefs to see.
How could Iraqi civilians be worse off than being held under martial law by a foreign government? Why do you assume that the U.S. is giving these people the same rights and treatment that he is giving you?
September 10th, 2004 at 10:30 pm
Of course,if the U.S. hadn’t helped to install Saddam into power,things might have been much different.
Can you show me that the rebuilding of Iraq will leave it in better condition than it was in ,say, when it invaded Kuwait? As I recall,it was a botched meeting between the U.S. ambassador and Saddam that led him to believe that he could get away with invading Kuwait. Having convinced the U.N. that it was thoroughly dreadful that one despotic Arab nation should take over another despotic arab nation,the Americans,led by a guy named Bush, launched a crippling war against the Iraqi people. Having evicted Saddam’s forces from Kuwait, they pushed the war deep into Iraq, damaging the infrastructure and killing thousands of civilians in the process. They littered the land with depleted uranium-tipped shells, a highly toxic ‘dirty weapon’,and in an effort to squeeze Saddam out of power, the U.S. persuaded the U.N. to impose some of the most callous and brutal sanctions ever visited on a nation. Ten years later, when it becomes apparent that the people of Iraq aren’t about to rise up and depose Saddam, the next Bush to make it to the White House manages to convince everybody that the WTC attacks were somehow the work of Iraq, and that Iraq was building nuclear weapons,and that everybody should join in another great American crusade. The UN in its wisdom disagreed. The US in its arrogance ignored the UN.
The threat that Bush said existed turned out to be negligible. American troops slaughetered the Iraqi army in their thousands [as well as themselves]. No evidence of chemical or nuclear weapons was found. Unlike Gulf War One, Gulf War Two was a war in which the stated objective was not achieved.
Unlike Gulf War One, Gulf War Two will be a war in which the unstated objectives will prevail. Iraq will be rebuilt, but only as America sees fit. There is much talk of a democratic government, but this is a flat lie. You cannot ‘instal’ democracy, especially if you intend to exclude specific political groups from the process. What you end up with is a puppet government, rather like the one that was created when Uncle Sam shoehorned his preferred candidate, one Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti, into the top seat of Iraq.
And we all know how successful that was. From Taranaki
September 11th, 2004 at 6:36 pm
November 25, 2003 MAUREEN FARRELL ARCHIVES Support BuzzFlash
Got Wingnuts on Your Christmas List? 15 Fabulous Gifts for Freepers
By Maureen Farrell
With Christmas approaching, you’re probably already dreading the annual holiday hunt. Chances are, you’ve got plenty of conservatives on your list, and just as likely, they’re people you admire yet respectfully disagree with. But you may also have a couple hard-nosed ideologues to consider. What do you get the Freeper who thinks he knows everything?
Ignorance is bliss, as they say, but in many cases, intervention is necessary. Granted, your Wingnut may balk and his or her head may spin ‘round and ‘round like that little girl in The Exorcist, but a temporary case of Linda Blairitis is a small price to pay for peace on Earth and good will towards men, isn’t it?
That’s why books make perfect presents – provided your favorite Freeper isn’t tragically overwhelmed by assaults to his rigidly fragile belief system (The book, Rating the Presidents, for example, ranks Ronald Reagan lower than Bill Clinton in “character and integrity,” which could send any Wingnut into a catatonic stupor). And so, you may want to find books that gently counter your loved one’s numbskull notions and then nonchalantly bookmark the pages and highlight the paragraphs which most accurately apply, like so:
1) For the “Love It or Leave Its” on Your List:
Lies and the Lying Lies Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right, Al Franken, page 24:
“If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they’ll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America. That we ‘blame America first’…
They don’t get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping the loved one grow.”
2) For Those Still Obsessed with Bill Clinton’s Penis:
Dude, Where’s My Country?, Michael Moore, pages 20-21:
“This is mind boggling. Here you have two dozen bin Ladens on American soil, Mr. Bush, and you come up with some lame excuse that you were worried abut ‘their safety.’ Might it have been possible that at least one of the twenty-four bin Ladens would have possibly known something? Or maybe one of them could have been ‘convinced’ to help track Osama down?
Nope. None of that. So while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!
Of course the bin Ladens have been your business associates. Why wouldn’t you do a little favor for some of the old family friends? But, to use the Clinton analogy again, imagine, in the hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton suddenly started worrying about the ‘safety’ of the McVeigh family up in Buffalo – and then arranged for a free trip out of the country. What would you and the Republicans have said about that? Suddenly, a stain on a blue dress wouldn’t have been the top priority for a witch hunt, would it?”
3) For Wingnuts Who Prattle on about Bush’s Decency:
What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias And The News, Eric Alterman, pages 172-173:
“While Bush claims publicly to ‘do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights,’ he and his partners in the Texas Rangers arranged for Texas authorities to expropriate private land investors to build their new baseball stadium. When some owners resisted, or balked at the low process being offered, their land was condemned and expropriated by force of law. This occurred on 270 acres of land, even though only about seventeen acres were needed for the ballpark. The rest was used by Bush and Co. for commercial development and has provided the basis of Bush’s personal fortune.”
4) For Those Who Believe “They Hate Us for Our Freedoms”:
All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Terror In The Middle East, Stephen Kinzer, page ix:
“One day I attended a book party for an older Iranian woman who had written her memoirs… After she finished speaking, I couldn’t resist the temptation to ask a question. ‘You mentioned Mossadegh,’ I said. ‘What do you remember, or what can you tell us, about the coup against him?’ She immediately became agitated and animated.
‘Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?’ she cried out. ‘We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while others were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’”
5) For Dorks Who Misread Bush’s Post-9/11 Popularity:
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Gore Vidal, page 20:
“Simultaneously, Bush’s approval rating soared, but then, traditionally, in war, the president is totemic like the flag. When Kennedy got his highest rating after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs, he observed, characteristically, ‘It would seem that the worse you fu*k up in this job the more popular you get.’”