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.
165 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
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.
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.
How sad.
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.
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.
$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!!!
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
THere were no weapons. Why did we go
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…
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
W.2004
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
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!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
kill those shitbags
shoot them before they shoot us
shoot them before they shoot us
hey daniel this class is boring
shoot them before they shoot us
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…
are you people st-st-stupid anti-war if for people who are scared
smoke weed everyday
anybody else wanna take a hit
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.
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……
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.
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!
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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
ddfgd
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still not done. I forgot to add one thing.
You are a moron.
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!
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!
Dually noted. I’ll try and keep my temper from here on.
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
….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.
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.
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!!!
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.
hmm….I thought it said HTML allowed. Well here’s the link without all the clutter. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
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?
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
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.’”
6) For Anyone Underestimating the “Con” in Neocon:
Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses Of Propaganda In Bush’s War On Iraq, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 48-49:
“In testimony before Congress on February 25, 1998, Paul Wolfowitz urged Congress to authorize the [Iraqi Liberation Act] as a way of getting rid of Saddam without using U.S. ground troops. ‘Help the Iraqi people remove him from power,’ Wolfowitz said. He added, ‘However – and I think this is very important — the estimate that it would take a major invasion with U.S. ground forced seriously overestimates Saddam Hussein.’
At the time, these words were meant to reassure members of Congress. The idea of a U.S.-engineered ‘regime change’ was still considered radical and dangerous, and Wolfowitz wanted to make it clear that he was not asking them to sign on to the even more dangerous idea of drawing America into an outright war. Five years later, however, the inauguration of George W. Bush and the post-9/11 war on terrorism would put Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives back in the driver’s seat of U.S foreign policy. Nine days after the September 11 attacks, PNAC [the Project for a New American Century] sent an open letter to President Bush, calling not only for the destruction of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, but also to extend the war to Iraq, and take measures against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.”
7) For Poetry-Lovers:
Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld, compiled and edited by Hart Seely, page 77:
You saw what happened in Afghanistan:
The people went out in the streets,
And they were joyous
And they had balloons
And they played music
And they welcomed the U.S.
Because everyone knows
The United States doesn’t want to occupy Iraq.
The Clinton Wars, Sidney Blumenthal, pages 769 -770
“On June 8, 2001, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, after extensive hearings, approved a report on ‘Election Practices in Florida During the 200 Campaign’… The report stated:
‘The Commission’s finding make one thing clear: widespread voter disenfranchisement — not the dead-heat contest – was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election… The disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters…
After carefully and fully examining all the evidence, the Commission found a strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) occurred in Florida… The state’s highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency, uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take responsibility…’
No one knows how many black voters were improperly scrubbed from the rolls or how many ballots marked with clear intent were not counted. But certainly there were more than enough of those ballots to have elected Gore if they had been.”
9) For Anyone Who Ever Sent You a “Clinton Body Count” List:
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience Of An Ex-Conservative, David Brock, page 331
“As George Bush took office, I wondered if everything I had seen on the right in the ‘90s was just a prelude for what was about to happen. As Bush’s government was assembled, with Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni handling the flow of resumes from the Heritage Foundation over to the White House personnel office, many of the key players made up a rogues’ gallery from my past. As I scanned a column in the Washington Post each morning where the new Bush appointees’ names were announced, it was glaringly apparent that this is what the Clinton wars had been all along. The Federalist Society of right-wing lawyers who had been the heart of the anti-Clinton conspiracy turned out to be a virtual Bush government in exile; the new administration’s policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, slashing environmental protections, and rolling back civil rights bore the Society’s stamp, as did many of Bush’s nominees to the federal bench.”
10) For Those Who Consider FOX News “Fair and Balanced”:
The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century, Paul Krugman, pages 288-289
“Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won’t go along are cowards.
Europeans, who don’t see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq — rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda — has become the focus of U.S. policy. That’s why many of them question American motives…They don’t see opposition to an Iraq War as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.
There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets — operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration’s foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic — have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.
So which is it? I’ve reported, you decide.”
11) For Wingnuts Who Think Liberals Are Weenies:
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts The Truth, Joe Conason, page 66
“[T]he startling fact is that liberal Democratic politicians are at least as likely to have done military service as their Republican opponents and critics. Among the U.S. senators in the 107th Congress, the percentage of veterans was slightly higher among Democrats than among Republicans (if service in the Vietnam-era National Guard is excluded). That sort of statistic wouldn’t matter so much if not for the right’s continuing indulgence in venomous attacks on the patriotism of liberals and Democrats.”
12) For Anyone Who Unconditionally Trusts the Pentagon:
Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, James Bamford, page 82
“According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, The Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refuges fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked.”
13) For Anyone Who Unconditionally Trusts the Bushes:
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul For Saudi Crude, Robert Baer, pages 48, 51
“Call it poetic coincidence. But right as the Carlyle Group was getting into its annual investor conference at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, only two and a half miles to the south… At the meeting were the group’s senior counsel, James Baker, secretary of state in the Bush I administration; then Carlyle chairman Frank Carlucci, Ronald Reagan’s last secretary of defense and national security advisor before that; and Shafiq bin Laden, representing the Bin Laden Group — one of the world’s largest construction companies – but far more famous today as Osama bin Laden’s brother. The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington’s strange affair with Saudi Arabia…
Carlye’s most famous advisor is George Herbert Walker Bush, the forty-first president of the United States… Indeed, even as his son was campaigning for the presidency in 2000, papa Bush flew to a posh desert compound outside Riyadh to discuss Saudi-U.S. business relationships with Crown Prince ‘Abdallah. Carlyle insists that Bush was not carrying the investment firm’s portfolio on the trip, but it could not have escaped the notice of his superwealthy hosts that G.H.W. Bush is a trusted and highly valued Carlyle senior advisor – with a son making a run at the White House.”
14) For Semi-Sentient Female Freepers:
Secrets of the Tomb: Skull And Bones, The Ivy League, And the Hidden Paths of Power, Alexandra Robbins, pages 157-158:
“The plaintiffs claimed that admitting women [into Skull and Bones] would lead to ‘date rape’ in the ‘medium-term future’ and that before women could be admitted to the society, a change in society bylaws was necessary. Bones held a second vote on October 24. More than 425 members came to the tomb and hundreds more voted by proxy; the votes tallied 368 to 320 in favor that women should be elected to the society. The women were initiated on Sunday, October 27. Senators David Boren and John Kerry later disclosed that they voted for the admittance of women. George Bush and George W. Bush have never confessed how they voted, though George W. might have provided a clue when he told PBS producer Lynn Novick, a woman who graduated from Yale in 1983, that ‘Yale went downhill since they admitted women.’”
15) For Blowhards Who Pontificate About JFK and ‘Nam:
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam And The Pentagon Papers, by Daniel Ellsberg
pages 195-196:
“But what wasn’t clear to me was how Kennedy could have been so prescient in 1961, or where he would have gotten such a strong personal commitment, as to draw an absolute line against American ground combat in Vietnam. Bobby had not said that his brother had already decided in 1961 to withdraw from Vietnam; he had simply told me that JFK preferred to and intended to do that rather than to send ground troops… .I asked, a little impudently, ‘What made him so smart?’…
‘Because we were there!’ He slammed the desktop again. His face contorted in anger and pain. ‘We were there, in 1951. We saw what was happening to the French. We saw it. My brother was determined, determined, never to let that happen to us.’”
BACK TO TOP
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
‘War president’ Bush has always been soft on terror; His campaign says vote Republican or die - but he lets al-Qaida off the hook
by Craig Unger / The Guardian
Where’s George Orwell when we need him? Because we Americans need him. We desperately need him. Consider: in August 2001, immediately after reading a memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, President George Bush went bass fishing - and never called a meeting to discuss the issue.
A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the next seven minutes reading a children’s book, The Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.
And when it comes to his own military service, recent revelations show that Bush got out of fighting in Vietnam thanks to his dad’s political clout. Even then, Bush didn’t fulfil his obligations to the National Guard.
Yet somehow the Bush-Cheney ticket is convincing Americans that only a Republican administration can handle national security. If John Kerry wins, Dick Cheney warned: “The danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.” The choice is simple: Vote Republican, or die. And voters are buying it.
A poll just after the Republican convention showed that 27% of the voters preferred Bush to Kerry when it came to national security. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that if Bush wins in November it will be because of the fear factor.
Yet the truth is that Bush is actually soft on terror. When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the forces behind terrorism, shielded the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it.
One key reason is the Bush-Saudi relationship, the like of which is unprecedented in US politics. Even after the success of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, the subject is largely taboo in the American media. Never before has a president of the US - much less two from the same family - had such close ties with another foreign power.
Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a powerful member of the royal family, has been a close friend of George Bush Snr for more than 20 years. Nicknamed Bandar Bush, he drops by the Bush residences in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Crawford, Texas, not to mention the White House. He and Bush senior go on hunting trips together.
Then there’s the money. More than $1.4bn of financial transactions have gone from the House of Saud to corporations and institutions tied to the Bushes and their allies - largely to companies such as the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and HarkenEnergy. So what does all that influence buy the Saudis?
Let’s go to the White House on September 13 2001. Just 48 hours after 9/11, the toxic rubble at the World Trade Centre site was still ablaze. The estimated death count, later lowered significantly, was thought to be as high as 40,000.
On that afternoon, Bandar met on the Truman balcony with President Bush and the two men lit up Cohiba cigars. At the time, the White House knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. It knew that Osama bin Laden was Saudi. And, as the 9/11 commission concluded, it knew that Saudi Arabia was “the primary source of money for al-Qaida”, which was largely funded by wealthy Saudis via Islamist charities.
President Bush was in the presence of the ambassador from the country that is the guardian of Wahhabi Islam, the fundamentalist sect which helped produce al-Qaida. This is where the war on terror and a massive investigation into the greatest crime in US history should have begun.
But, given the intimate relationship between the two families - and, of course, the fact that the Saudis help fuel America’s 165m automobiles - this was not just a meeting between the president of the US and the ambassador of a country that harboured and financed terrorists. The Saudis were special.
Because Bush and Bandar were the only two people present, we do not know exactly what was said. But we do know that the president failed to join the issue of the Saudi role in terror or how to stop the funding of terrorism through Islamist charities and financial institutions.
That same afternoon, the first of 11 chartered planes began to pick up more than 140 Saudis scattered throughout the US. Saudi Arabia and the president’s defenders have mounted a massive PR campaign to minimise the damage of the Saudi evacuation. But the facts in the 9/11 commission report remain unchanged. The Saudi evacuation flights were not the fantasies of conspiratorialists. They actually took place. The departures were approved by the White House and the vast majority of Saudi passengers were not interviewed by the FBI.
This was the biggest crime in US history. But, in the midst of a grave national security crisis, rather than investigating it the White House and the FBI spent their limited resources helping evacuate the Saudis.
Over the next two years, the 9/11 commission found, the Bush administration failed “to develop a strategy to counter Saudi terrorist financing”. As a result, our Saudi allies were half-hearted in cooperating on terrorist financing and, the commission concluded: “the US government still has not determined with any precision how much al-Qaida raises or from whom, or how it spends its money.”
Now, thanks to Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America’s War on Terror, a new book by Senator Bob Graham, we know that the Saudis may have played an even bigger role in 9/11 than previously reported. As a member of the Senate intelligence committee, Graham said he learned that “evidence of official Saudi support” for at least two of the 19 hijackers was “incontrovertible”.
As co-chairman of the joint House-Senate panel investigating 9/11, Graham found his efforts to get to the bottom of the Saudi role in 9/11 again and again were quashed by the Bush administration. When his committee tried to subpoena a key witness who happened to be an FBI informant, the FBI refused to cooperate. “It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a congressional subpoena,” Graham told Salon.com in a recent interview. “The FBI wasn’t acting on its own,” he added, “but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate.”
In the end, 27 pages of the report on the role of the Saudis in 9/11 were classified by the White House and not released to the public. According to Graham, the Bush administration may have censored the material because it did not want the public to be aware of Saudi support for the 9/11 terrorists. “There has been a long-term special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia,” he said, “and that relationship has probably reached a new high under the George W Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family.”
Graham writes: “It was as if the president’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.”
If that is the case, no wonder the Bush-Cheney ticket is counting on fear.
I think us sitting around second guessing the president is like arm chair quarterbacking. We all suddenly gained super insight into knowing what should have been done and what should not have been done to win the game. But who wants to get up off of there fat ass and run for office to change anything? VERY FEW PEOPLE and the ones who do run are inherently flawed just like the rest of us. The analogy of the the little red hen comes to mind also. Everyone want to eat the bread, but noone wants to crush the wheat or help bake the bread. It is kind of disheartening. I would not want to weight of the country on my shoulders, they are not broad enough. I admire any one that has the guts to be president right or left.
Okay, Bush bashers, it’s time for a reality check. John Kerry has about as good a chance of winning this election as I have of being struck by lightning. This election is going to be a landslide for Bush, with at least 320 electoral votes. Therefore, it’s time for you folks to quit your whining and look forward to four more “horrible” years of being safe and secure under President Bush.
Okay, Bush bashers, it’s time for a reality check. John Kerry has about as good a chance of winning this election as I have of being struck by lightning. This election is going to be a landslide for Bush, with at least 320 electoral votes. Therefore, it’s time for you folks to quit your whining and look forward to four more “horrible” years of being safe and secure under President Bush.
For Stevenson and Smith,
Put Away Your Hankies…a message from Michael Moore
9/20/04
Dear Friends,
Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner — IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, “Oh, it’s all over! We are finished! Bush can’t win! Waaaaaa!”
Hell no. It’s never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished — they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.
They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them — they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself “Republican,” yet the Republicans own it all — the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they’ve been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It’s because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.
Look at us — what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it’s like, “THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!”
No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win… Dammit, of COURSE he’s a lousy candidate — he’s a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don’t run — and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.
Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president — Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a… Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, “Oh God, NOT a friggin’ Pontiac!” Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can’t help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.
My friends, it is time for a reality check.
1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead — and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling “likely voters.” “Likely” means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.
Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.
Traveling around the country, as I’ve been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers — everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).
Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on “9/11” (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that “job,” you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain’t the one who sent those kids to their deaths — and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the “service” he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be “won.” All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.
So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn’t windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It’s like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you — “Kerry voted for the war…Kerry voted for the war…Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr…”
Yes…Yes…Yesssss….He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now…what I need is sleep…sleeep…sleeeeeeppppp…
WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street — and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS — YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?
Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?
Yours,
Michael Moore http://www.michaelmoore.com mmflint@aol.com
Of course Michael Moore would issue a statement like this. He’s a radical liberal that he would say anything to try and keep the idea in his mind that Bush is packing. Besides, Mr. Moore needs to be reminded that the national polls, first of all, consistently show a lead for President Bush, and anyway, those polls don’t really matter. It’s the state polls that count, and when it comes to the battlegrounds, Bush is looking very good right now. Bush is leading in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, Missouri, Arizona, Ohio, and most importantly, Florida. Bush is probably also going to add New Jersey, Oregon, Maine, and New Hamshire to his win column, which leads to my conclusion-Bush by a fairly wide margin.
“Bush is probably also going to add New Jersey”
Speaking as a NJ resident I suggest you keep your mouth shut and let us still wonder whether you are a fool or not. However it’s too late, you opened it and prove me right.
Bush has absolutely no chance in my state. So many young voters 21-18 are pissed off and we will be voting in droves.
And yes this is about the only good thing bush has done. He has energized the young, INFORMED voters to vote against his sorry ass.
4 more months!!!!!!
Great blog!
GO BUSH!! To all you Kerry fans… here is my opinion, Kerry claims to be such a devout Catholic and yet he supports abortion, he supports gay marriage, divorce and many other things that the Catholic church DOES NOT support, he is a hypocrit! If jesus was on this earth do you think he would support abortion? Or GAY MARRIAGE? or divorce? NO i dont think so, Bush is only doing what he thinks is right, he has so much pressure on his shoulders being president especially right now! this world is freakin crazy!! VOTE BUSH 2004!!!!
First off, Kerry supports choice, not abortion. Secondly, he does not support Gay Marriage, and lastly, shut the hell up about Divorce; Bush supports it too, you moron. Clearly you are one of those religious zealot voters since you think this is a major issue.
“If jesus was on this earth do you think he would support abortion?”
I don’t know, but do YOU think Jesus would support killing 12,000 innocent Iraqis based on lies?
Anyways, I can completely make your ENTIRE post irrelevant with one phrase—Seperation of Church and State. It’s people like you who made the Pilgrims come to this land.
P.S. It is spelled hypocrite.
Personally, I would hope if Jesus would be alive today that he would listen to the personal tragedies of people, rather then judge them…
WAIT A MINUTE!!! Rob, President Bush has finally brought values back to the White House, after the disgrace of Clinton…there is no basis to challenge him on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and divorce. I’m also getting real tired of the anti-Bush whiners calling anyone who supports him “moron” or “idiot” as if anyone with intelligence is voting for Kerry. I consider myself pretty intelligent, as well as many of my friends, and we’re casting our ballots for President Bush.
Actually, there is a lot of intelligence needed for someone to vote for Kerry…it would probably take someone with a 1000 IQ to figure out his position on Iraq!
If you have “SO” much intelligence, address my points you retard. Don’t just spout silly talking points. You didn’t address 1. You just brought up Bill fucking Clinton, who HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS RACE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
Kerry has had one position on Iraq. He thinks Bush was right to disarm Saddam, but NOT the way he did. Kerry voted to give the PRESIDENT the authority to CHOOSE to goto war IF NECESSARY, and to BUILD A REAL COALITION.
It wasn’t NECESSARY, and He didn’t build a REAL coalition. Bush also grossly mismanaged the war.
You’re right Rob, I should address your points.
I have no idea what Jesus would have thought about the Iraq war. But I know he wouldn’t have endorsed the killing of 3,000 on September 11, nor would he have endorsed the daily killing of others by the Iraqi insurgents and other terrorist groups. The Bible does mention “an eye for an eye.”
Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and in fact, many of the Founding Fathers didn’t want there to be a separation of church and state, Benjamin Franklin being one of them.
You claim that John Kerry has had a constant position on the war in Iraq. What about “I voted for the war before I voted against it?” What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sometimes he is against the war, sometimes he’s for it.
Thank you. I will now address your points with my counter-points.
You are right. I am not Jesus. However I do believe it was Laceface (a Bush supporter) who first mentioned yeshua (jesus) and I merely was replying to her comment. How does she know have any idea what Jesus thinks about being pro-choice on abortion? Or How do YOU know that Jesus supported an eye for an eye? The Christian Bible didn’t exist in Jesus’s time.
While the exact words of Seperation of Church and State are not in the constitution, the basic idea of a seperation of church and state is and it is clearly implied. The first amendment reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Notice it does not say “of a” religion. It says only “of” religion. That is because what the first amendment means is that there should be no law respecting the establishment of religion in general.
For more clarification, you can check this out:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269
It is a site by an independent group called factcheck.org
I’m not good at staying on topic. I just want to say that Republicans pay by going into debt, and democrats pay by raising taxes. Which makes more sense? Eventually we will have to pay off this war. Therefore either fundraising billions of dollars or raising taxes. I like Rob. PEACE
This race will be over by the end of next week-Bush is going to cream Kerry in the debates! Bush is such a good debater.
Thank moveon.
Just getting the REAL truth out there.
And to Mortimer…you are right Bush is a good debater because he was a cheerleader. Cheerleader’s are good at driving simple, catchy phrases home.
However this country doesn’t want a Cheerleader as president, we want an intelligent, skilled debater.
HA YES!
Kerry won the debates, no ifs ands or buts about it.
The tide has turned!
debate*
Don’t you think it’s time for Kerry to throw in the towel and endorse Bush for President? He even flip-flopped during the debate! My question is, if you’re planning to vote for him, how do you know he won’t change his mind on the things you agree with him on?
FYI-Isn’t it time to close this thread? It’s now lasted 13 months, and the page is just becoming way too long…
By the way, “liberals in denial” probably want to know how Kerry flip-flopped during the debate. Here it is:
Kerry: “Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”
Next question:
Lehrer: Senator Kerry, speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Kerry: No.
Kerry just flip-flopped in a time period of five minutes.
God damn, you make it so easy to rip your arguments apart…
Kerry: “Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”
Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Kerry: No.
Invading is the key word there. Kerry never said disarming Saddam was a mistake. He said rushing to war was.
Face it, Bush clearly lost the debate. It is kind of pathetic that you can’t even be truthful because you are so biased
I’ve thought about it from time to time, but people just keep coming back. I figure as long as people continue to be willing to load the whole thing and keep talking, I’ve got no real reason to stop them.
Incidentally, I just printed this page to a .pdf file, and it came out to 37 pages — while my current all-time winner as far as page size is the Why I Hate George W. Bush thread, which when printed comes out to 98 pages! And, like this one, every few days it picks up another comment or two….
Look, Rob, I am being truthful here! True, if you really look at the nuances of Kerry’s innumerable positions, you could somehow conceivably, if you really twisted around his words, find something consistent. Do you really think the average swing voter is going to be able to do that? John Kerry might have (and I say might have because it certainly is not for sure that he did) won this debate on points, but he lost his last chance to connect with the undecided voters.
Rob, the troops are there because the President sent them there, and if Kerry claims that the president made a mistake in sending them there, then he should have said that the troops are dying for a mistake. However Kerry, knowing that saying that would be political suicide, flip-flopped and said no. That certainly does not inspire any kind of confidence in his ability to handle the Iraq situation.
Mr. Hanscom, thank you for replying to my comment about the thread’s length.
By the way, responding to the original question, I can come up with 10 good things Bush has done:
Here’s some more good things:
*Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits *Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay *Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent *Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure *Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids *Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war *Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay
Continued…
Bush’s Ever Changing Positions On IRAQ
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn’t like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON’T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
“I—I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I—I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my—I take my—my responsibility seriously.” —October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” —February 24, 2001
Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” —July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN’s sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason — we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it — in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a “catastrophic success.” That’s what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Sure, Bush has made some mistakes during his presidency. I haven’t gone through the long list that Erick put up, and some of those might not be what I would consider mistakes, but let’s assume that they are all mistakes Bush has made. I could write a book with the amount of mistakes Clinton made during his presidency.
Jesus Christ Mortimer. CLINTON ISN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT YOU FUCKING MORON.
The fact that you bring up Clinton, and not John Kerry shows that Kerry is the better man for the job.
But Rob it makes sense though…look:
Clinton+blowjob with Monica = impeachment
Bush+Ill-gotten war = 4 more years
makes sense!
Or how about:
Clinton: Moved from record deficits to record $236 billion surplus
Bush: Moved from record surplus to record $445 billion deficit.
Clinton: 22 million jobs created lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.
Bush: 1.1 millions jobs lost. Highest unemployment rate in nine years.
Clinton: Increased minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15
Bush: Opposes wage increase
Clinton: Earned income tax credit for 15 million poorer working families.
Bush: Tax cuts for the rich, increased audits for tax credits for working families.
Clinton: Biggest expansion in college aid since GI bill.
Bush: Under-funds own education initiative.
Clinton: Largest expansion of national parks and monuments since Teddy Roosevelt, signed Safe Drinking Water Act, signed Kyoto Accord.
Bush: Used regulations to undermine Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (which would have reduced levels of arsenic in drinking water), rejected Kyoto Accord and expanded logging and oil drilling in national parks and monuments.
Damn, you’re right erick. That does make sense! I am now pro-Bush…4 more years 4 more years!
I’d just like to make a comment about Saturday’s episode of Saturday Night Live, where they mocked the debate between President Bush and John Kerry. I think it’s shameful that they would try to find humor in a debate where the most serious issues facing this country were being discussed, the most serious being the sacrifice of over a thousand American troops. If they want to make fun of a debate about cutting taxes or about Al Gore’s “lockbox”, fine; but SNL really crossed a line in using deaths of soldiers in any way, shape, or form, for humor, even though it was indirect. I would hope that you would all join me in condeming the behavior of the writers of Saturday Night Live.
“but SNL really crossed a line in using deaths of soldiers in any way, shape, or form, for humor, even though it was indirect.”
How was it indirect?
I can name three good things Bush has done you morons.
He just lost three different debates to John Kerry. Those are the best three things he’s done in his term.
3 more weeks guys!!!!!!
Whoever you are voting for/campaigning for, you better get out there and make your voice heard. I mean it. Get out there and do what you can do to get your man elected. Especially you people opposing bush. Get your asses out there and help me out. Door to door. Flyers. Anything. editorials in newspapers. It’s our time to work, that is the only way. Get your hands in democracy and lets see a change in january. PEACE TO ALL!
Agreed moveon.
And Hey I finally have an answer to the question of naming three good things bush has done.
He lost 3 debates to John Kerry. I personally feel that these are the three greatest things Bush has accomplished in his term.
3 more weeks!
President Bush lost three debates to Kerry? That’s nonsense! The first debate was a narrow Kerry win, according to the pundits. The second debate was a draw, hardly a Kerry win, and in the third debate, history will show that Bush won the White House with his performance in the third debate.
Polls did show more people thought Kerry won the second and third debates than thought Bush won. However, those polls have been wrong. According to polls after the 2000 debates, Gore won the first and third debates. However, most pundits now agree that Bush won those debates. If we look at the polls for those second debates, a large amount of people thought that the two candidates tied. That, to me, points to a draw. A vast majority of Kerry voters thought Kerry won; vice versa for Bush.
However, in the third debate, Kerry made a huge gaffe, reminiscient to the disaster of Dukakis in 1988 (death penalty question) or Bush in 1992 (looking at his watch). He made reference to VP Cheney’s daughter when talking about whether or not homosexuality was a choice, which has been widely criticized. This opens up attacks on his personality, which is a very crucial area when it comes to winning the white house. For many undecided voters and soft Kerry supporters, this will be seen as a dirty attack. It will sweep Bush into the White House. There has already been movement in the polls; a Zogby/Reuters poll released on Friday showed Bush with a 48-44 lead, a big difference from the 47-44 lead Kerry held on Sunday the 10th in that poll. Virtually all polls now show President Bush has retaken a lead and stopped the momentum Kerry had after the first debate, and things are only going to get worse for Kerry. Incumbent presidents usually gain on the challenger in the last few weeks of the race. Kerry has peaked, and is now on the way down. This race is virtually over; only disaster in Iraq could stop Bush now.
“He made reference to VP Cheney’s daughter when talking about whether or not homosexuality was a choice, which has been widely criticized.”
This has only been FALSELY criticized by the Bushies and by the Cheney’s. It appears the Cheney’s are ashamed of their homosexual daughter.
The only people complaining about the Mary Cheney comment are the Bush freaks. Oh and how ironic that they support an Anti-Gay candidate but are made about this.
The Cheney’s aren’t really mad. They are blowning this up because Bush did lose all three debates.
It appears as if the Cheney’s are ashamed of their daughter. How truly sad.
The only people complaining about the Mary Cheney comment are the Bush freaks. Oh and how ironic that they support an Anti-Gay candidate but are made about this.
The Cheney’s aren’t really mad. They are blowning this up because Bush did lose all three debates.
It appears as if the Cheney’s are ashamed of their daughter. How truly sad.
“Virtually all polls now show President Bush has retaken a lead”
Ha bullshit! There is only one poll which puts Bush ahead and thats Zogby. Way to lie you dirty son of a bitch. And the Zogby poll is only of Likely voters, which of course favors Bush when compared to registered voters.
sorry about the triple post
i know bush has done things wrong . is there anythng out there he has done right?answer back
Okay, now I find this quote to be somewhat funny. It’s an old post on this page but here it is:
“GO BUSH!! To all you Kerry fans… here is my opinion, Kerry claims to be such a devout Catholic and yet he supports abortion, he supports gay marriage, divorce and many other things that the Catholic church DOES NOT support, he is a hypocrit! If jesus was on this earth do you think he would support abortion? Or GAY MARRIAGE? or divorce? NO i dont think so, Bush is only doing what he thinks is right, he has so much pressure on his shoulders being president especially right now! this world is freakin crazy!! VOTE BUSH 2004!!!!”
***Breaking this down… Abortion: The Catholic Church opposed vaccines when they first came out…imagine if no one opposed that! Besides, nothing in the Bible says that abortion is immoral. Killing a fetus is equal to killing sperm by say jerking off and then flushing semen down the toilet. As for killing millions of OUR troops and millions of Iraqis, you “world police” believers do the math. Christianity glorifies the sacrifice of an innocent man so the guilty can have life. It’s kind of ironic when Christian anti-abortionists complain rhetorically about killing innocent babies. Here is a site that will hopefully open your subborn minds to what the Bible ACTUALLY says:
http://www.usbible.com/law/abortion.htm
Gay Marrige: I find this one amusing because usually religious fanatics (which tend to lean to the right) are anti gay marriage…or anything related to gays for that matter. This is because in the Bible (under First Corinthians 6:9 and First Timothy 1:10) the word homosexual appears in the text as a sin. I’ve been to bible study so I would know…yet this has been proven as incorrect. Firstly, the word ‘homosexual’ was invented in the decade of the 1890’s. Funny how it somehow made its way into the Bible, which was written thousands of years earlier! The word “homosexual” here is a complete misinterpretation. Don’t Take My Word For It…go here:
http://www.gentleshepherdmcc.com/bible/corinth.php
http://www.fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html
Divorce Here’s a link to an interesting site:
http://www.howellministries.com/divorce.html
Conclusion: The Bible is ambiguous due to the limited vocabulary of the Hebrew language. You have to realize it is one step up from hieroglyphics, and many words have more than one meaning, which the English language can most certainly relate to today! The interpretations and translations are left to those living in a certain generation and may relate sins to what society—at the time—sees as unfit. If the above were to be taken verbatim then…Neither American flag-lovers (idolaters) nor any human who engages in sex (fornicators), nor Bush—which we all know was arrested for public drunkenness (drunkards) will inherit the kingdom of God.
To respond to the rest…”president” Bush is attempting to sway his religious voters strategically to benefit his candidacy. Remember how he became governor of Texas??? He passed out fliers with two gay guys kissing at many churches saying that his opponent advocated that and miraculously won…what a surprise! And this according to a PBS documentay. In these “crazy” times we’re living in…let us vote for the REAL issues that actually matter. Kerry is not my cup of tea…but in these circumstances…VOTE KERRY Nov. 2, 04 and get Bush the heck out of OUR White House!!!
Well folks, I want to hear your predictions for the election! Please be realistic; everyone knows that neither Kerry or Bush is going to win by a landslide. Just say what you think the electoral totals are going to be, and give a summary of the major states each candidate will win.
While it pains me to say it, I think that Kerry is going to win, but that Bush has an outside chance. The electoral vote margin will be 272-266, and the results will be questioned for a week or so after the election because of how close it is. Bush is going to prevail in Florida, Kerry in Pennsylvania, and, most importantly, in Ohio. Bush will pick up two Gore states, Iowa and New Mexico, while Kerry will snatch New Hampshire from Bush. The only way that Bush can win the election is by picking up either Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Hawaii, New Hampshire, or even possibly New Jersey! I also predict that all of these places will be in Kerry’s column. Hawaii and New Jersey will stay in Democratic hands, though it will be within a few percentage points (still can’t really explain why it’s so close in Hawaii, 9/11 has a big NJ effect). I think that this election is strange, because Bush is more popular in most places than he was four years ago, but will still lose. I believe that there is a 50-50 chance that Bush will win the popular vote, but a 75% chance that he’ll lose in the electoral college.
Unless they capture Osama Bin Laden tomorrow!
Kerry, by landslide and and dead serious.
Two reasons: Youth Turnout and Disenfranchised Voters.
and I’m*
If you haven’t already read the transcript of what Osama bin Laden said from the new video aquired…you can get it here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
I truly cannot understand the source of hatred expressed by members of the religious right. It’s great that we have in our country God-fearing Christians (or Jews, or Muslims for that matter) who believe as they do and live as they want. As a veteran, I swore an oath to defend this nation against all enemies, and, in a small way, I contributed to an effort to assure the continuing freedoms we all enjoy. Tops on that list, for me anyway, is the freedom guaranteed to us by the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would expect that the religious right could find it in their hearts to respect others who support their rights. But I have yet to see any respect offered here, or an opinion that wholeheartedly reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ. Instead, I see much more of an Old Testament, Bible-thumping, fire and brimstone, damn you to hell castigation of all who lean even slightly to the left. I also sense a level of intolerance that would make Saddam Hussein blush. If there is ever to be a closing of the divide, or healing of any kind, then please love your neighbor as yourself, whether or not you agree with her or his personal politics. Meet me that far, and then I will sit down at the table to talk to you about stem cell research, prayer in schools, same sex marriage, a woman’s right to choose, and the Patriot Act. And if, at the end, I am still alive, we’ll have coffee and cake.
Watching a history of political debates, you realize most politicians are “flip floppers” Does this mean their stance which makes them a popular vote has no meaning, just meat for the public to eat up? Let’s see what we have to pick-the moron who can’t pronounce words, has no interest in our foreign relations, and seems to let Bush followers believe that any bad that came out of the presidency was the fault of his administration and being mislead/or we have a governor who can actually speak whole sentences without saying a homely saying that republicans can hold their stomach and smile like they just ate a big pile of shit/which is what we’ve all been fed these last 4 years
Does anyone know why they postponed the count of Penn? The republicans aren’t allowing the count to take place till tomorrow…answer back.
Another Sad Day in America. Keep standing up for yourselfs. Although he got re-elected, that doesn’t mean that we can’t keep him in line. Peaceful protesting just to let George know what we want. Nobody should move to Canada;although, it is tempting. I will not support the majority of decisions this president makes; however, I will not oppose him just for the sake of doing so. Let’s get our minds out there and let’s get involved in making this world a better place. Life goes on…
If Bush is elected with a Republican Congress, I’m off to fucking Canada. FUCK YOU AMERICA YOU HAVE JUST SEALED THE DEAL CONCERNING YOUR FUCKING DEMISE!!!!!!!!!!
I WILL LAUGH WHEN YOU FALL YOU DICKHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I have reconsidered. I don’t want to be part of Team America in World War 3. I’ll see you in Canada Rob. FUCK BUSH AND HIS WHOLE ADMINISTRATION. Kerry, thanks for all the motivation and the realization that America is flawed. Big time. PEACE TO ALL
For anyone who is looking for that much needed laugh:
http://www.opinionbug.com/index.php?p=87
Jason, on your post you say that the other choice is “a governor who can actually speak whole sentences without saying a homely saying that republicans can hold their stomach and smile like they just ate a big pile of shit/which is what we’ve all been fed these last 4 years” excuse me but i believe that if you are referring to kerry, he is a senator, not a governor. That just shows exactly how much you know about your candidate.
Haven’t come here since the election, because I knew that there would be complaining from the liberals over Bush’s strong win. So, Rob is going to Canada? Fine. If all of the other liberals follow you, then we’ll have nothing to worry about-Republicans will be in control of the government for the next 100 years.
“If all of the other liberals follow you, then we’ll have nothing to worry about-Republicans will be in control of the government for the next 100 years”
HAHAHAH Very unlikely.
The US will fall before the next 100 years. I hope you red-neck fucks are happy when you die of a terrorist attack. Have fun in your fascist state fucker.
Yeah, Bush has made mistakes, but who hasn’t? He ain’t perfect. I’m glad we went to war with Iraq. What if they did have nuclear weapons? What if they were hiding something to wipe us out? We didn’t know if they did or didn’t; thats a risk he had to take. Okay, so he was wrong. We got the bad guy in the end. If Kerry was elected president, I believe that we would have gotten attacked again because they are testing him to for his reactions. They tested Bush and he didn’t take no crap. Bush didn’t stagger under the pressure, he stood firm for what he believed. That’s what makes a good president; someone willing to take risks for the freedom of the people.
You are advocating embarking on a war where thousands of lives will be lost all based on a hunch? “What if they DO have deadly weapons?” “WHAT IF the president listened to his national security advisor when she said in 2001 that Iraq posed no threat?” or “WHAT IF Bush had let the United Nations continue their job?” Yeah, “what ifs” are nice. Especially when you are handling delicate international negociations. It is funny, really, how you mention that “we got the bad guy in the end” when we are still at war and the death numbers are increasing. It is childish to think that because you capture an “evil doer” that terrorism is simply going to vanish. The porblem is much deeper than your superficial understanding of it. You should take a closer look at why this problem continues. However…”WHAT IF you simply do not really care and rebuttle anyone on a forum to win an argument rather than use your logic and ethics to support what is right. I do not understand how you can use Bush and freedom in the same sentence when he was one of the many in his administration to promote the Patriot Act which steals the freedoms of its citizens. If you are willing to support anyone based on apprehension of the unknown or just because someone will stay on course whether right or wrong, then I think I’ve just discovered why Bush got re-elected.
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” (Herman Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials.)
I do realize that this is a bit outdated however I can’t go without commenting on this comment by Katie:
“For our President to care enough for the Iraqy people is amazing. The 87 billion will get paid back to us”
Sure, it’s amazing that he has done more for their children then he will ever do for the children of America. However, “the 87 billion will get paid back to us” is something that should not go un-commented on. For crying out loud, the French/Germans..pratically every damned country on this world owes us money for our “aid/effort” in wartime events. That 87 billion is, as we all know, a much outdated number…but regardless we’re never going to see any of it, unless we take it in terms of their oil.
I agree with all of the Bush supports in that he has done amazing and astounding things for the Iraqi people, and that these people will live much better lives in the future. However, I can’t help but wonder what he has done for the American children…a failure of an “education” act (Every Child Left Behind) and a few other larger missteps later, we find the American people hurting the most since they have since the days of the depression.
All the same I can’t help but applaud him for the better lives he’s made in Iraq, I only wish he would have done the same thing for the American people. Now with his approval rating somewhere between 33% and 37% and a few indictments later…his presidency is pratically over, I can’t wait till the next election.
this is a little late i know but hitler did what he thought was the right thing too.
Not being a big fan of president Bush, I started reading the comments on this page. By the time I got to the fourth one, I started to think that maybe he’s not so bad after all. Okay, he made some mistakes, but who doesn’t? His mistakes are worldnews, while our mistakes are just mistakes. But then I read something posted by someone who calls himself Kay, and that shocked me. He litterally said “we are like the World Police” (the ‘we’ is the USA). And he said it as if it was the most normal and generally accepted fact there is. Well, Kay, You suck (pardon my french, but my mothertongue is dutch)! The USA is not the police of the world. You just think it is, and the majority of the US population with you. But in reality, you are just a nation, like any other, only with more inhabitants than most others, and therefore also with more power (military and economic). But you are not the police, nor are you the judge or executioner of the world. There is an organisation called the UN, who monitors what goes on in the world, and who reacts if necessary. I can’t believe how selfricheous you americans are. You really think that you know it all and that you’re the best in everything. Well I live in Belgium, and I am glad I don’t live in the US of A. Belgium is a tiny country, but our social system is about the best in the world, and in many other fields, we beat the crap out of the USA (in tennis too —>Clijsters and Henin haha). You just go and take a walk in South Central Los Angeles at night, and then tell me how great America is.
Dude fuck you. the majority of people in the united states voted for bush. therefore that shows that he was a better canidate for being president of the US then Kerry was. When Bill Clinton was in office getting blowjobs and smoking pot, no fucking democrat questioned on that. you Guys are just looking eveyrthing that bush does wrong you dont even fucking appreciate that your still alive and that he’s protecting your country. And that he’s helping out other foreign countrys at the same time while helping out in stupid fucking things that people cant figure out themselves. fuck all democrats you guys are retarded. all you guys do is bitch and complain about homosexual rights, animal rights, abortion rights, women rights and to get out of the war in iraq. its not like any of you fucking care because i dont see anybody doing fucking shit. Fuck you.
HOwdy dootie tootie frootie…I hate Bush and ALways will…!! he he
Listen, all you democrats do is bitch and moan about the economy, “oh when bush came into office the economy blundered,” well fuck that, if you look at the facts you would see that we were already sliding into a recession before bush even came to office, and september 11th just made it worse with all travelers too worried to fly because of terrorism attacks, which our president, george w. bush is trying to stop in iraq, a country who was suspected of possesing weapons of mass destruction. which they probably sent over to one of their other freindly islamic fucking countries, the only thing good in the middle east is Isreal, God’s country, i tip my cap to the bush administration and the white house for holding us together in a time where this country faced its worst attacks
All the Bush haters can go straight to hell with all the terrorists wiped out by our military. Hanscom, you’re pathetic.
bush was right about. -iraq having weapons of mass destruction (Iraq just sent all the weapons over to seria before military ever even got to iraq.) bush never. -knew that hurricane katrina was going to hit as early as it did. (according to the news accross america, a “DEMOCRAT,” in charge of informing the president when hurricane katrina was supposed to “HIT” new orleans. He DIDNT even try and call or get a hold of president bush while bush was away at a congress meeting. The people (democrats) focused more on that president bush about not being three then focusing on helping out the victims of katrina while most republicans gave money to the katrina victims.) Another question is why should bush be the one to be questioned about hurricane katrina? It was the MAYOR Of the city to inform this poor city about hurricane katrina. I blame the deaths of people such as parents, gangs, and people without transportion on poor intelegence. IT breaks my heart to see all those inocent childern dying now because of the’re parents refusing to leave and all the mentally disabled people who are unable to leave. The childern and mental should have been the ones focused towards. along with the elderly. bush should have focused on that if anything. I am a strong follower of the bush admination and i believe close to eveyrhting he does in our country. a question to ask ur self would be would you rather have a democrat president helping the country out selling technolgy to other non allias . and having no miltary because generals said if we have another democrat president they are all quiting. or have a president protecting our country ?
BUSH SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!
one good thing about bush…………………..(two weeks later) ah f*** it.
Fuck you
I want to say this is the first time I have ever read posts on a site like this. We as Americans need to realize that each president has their bad and good they are only human. Each president also has to deal with issues that were left for him to solve by previous presidents. We started the Taliban many years ago and now we are trying to rectify that situation. No one thought that they would some day be killing many of their own people and making them live in oppression. At the time we were to worried about the communists. The world is in a constant cycle of bad and good. There is never a perfect time of peace, there will always be some issue that someone disagrees with. This is why so many people on this web site have referred to others using curse words. We take advantage of our situation. To actually know what is going on we would have to be there. We can only learn from others and because of this facts get distorted. I do not understand why people are cursing at each other to try to prove their points. As you have noticed by reading this I have not made a definitive stand on whether or not Bush is a good president. We can gripe and whine all we want, but only the years and changes brought will tell the true story of who was a good president.
haha, good job, but their is like nothing else that is good!!!! now i can write you a novel on the bad things!!!!! lol
ok.. Bush has done a great job as president.. forget you. He put us in war, you think thats bad? think again. what got us our freedom? dont you feel bad for those in iraq who were being killed and hurt by that creep. and u think any democrat could have gotten us through 9/11??? yea right. so all im saying is THINK AGAIN when bad mouthing Bush. Has done a wonderful job for this country and putting up with ppl like u who have no clue wut their talking about!!!! Go Bush!!!!
ALL you democrats out there that say when Clinton was in office our economy was great but now its terrible cause of Bush open ur fucking eyes. When Clinto was in office he had a majority republican senate and house. Nothing would get passed that he wanted.Thats the only reason that everyone thinks Clinton did a great job when he didnt do shit. Everthing bad happened when bush is in office but nothing in clintons time. Fuck you guys bush is a great president for handling all this pressure.
The posts here that support Bush are ridiculous
Oh yea…we are so much safer because he is office Bullshit…our borders are wide fucking open and any terrorist could still walk across Canada or Mexico’s border with a suitcase nuke. If the man was so concerned about security, weeks after 9/11, they would have shut down the borders then, instead of this idiotic immigration issue now. They just politicize things when it suits their purpose.
Second, putting us into a war in Iraq when the nation had zero link to 9/11, and then try to link that nation to 9/11 is dispicible. Bin Laden, the person who was responsible for 9/11 is still alive and now there are even more people in the world that hate us because of his actions. All he has done is made more enemies for us and made our country weaker. That is the most un-American thing ever.
Lastly, the worst of all it is that he claims to use God as a guide for his decisions. I don’t know of any God that would be happy about: 1)The people killed in Katrina because of incompetence
2)The all the people killed or injured in the Iraq war, including the women and children massacred by our own troops.
3)The treatment of the poor and middle class in this country while the rich get tax breaks so they just get richer. Something about a rich man getting into heaven…I think Jesus had something to say about that.
4)Destruction of this planet from global warming…something our government would even acknowledge. I think God might be against this one since he created the world/universe. Something in the bible again about being good stewards…
Whatever…the point is this. The man and his administration are responsible for death and destruction, and they use God’s name while they do it. There is not a greater sin, and there is a special place in hell for all of them
wow thats sad
i dont believe bush is another hitler i jsut believe he is not right for this job. i mean i honestly believe he is trying to save his own ass before for saving ours
i thank george would like to be another hitler. he is just not smart enough. he dont care about our ass. he dont have enough since to worry about his owne ass. he is like nixon. he dont thank can be. touched. he thinks he is above the law. he has killed over 3000 of our kids in a war that he started . for no reason. i wish he had choked to death on that pretzel. we would all be better off. america will not survive george w bush. it is allready too late. only god can save america now. i hope and pray he does.
going to aphganestan was ok because of 9/11 but to take it 1 step farther and going into irac and iran. Trying to stop people from (warring)is kind of stupid consertering the fact that they have been (warring)for over thousands of years. We really think that we can actully stop it? its there way of life. Some of them… Do you actully think they are going to lay down there arms because the usa told them to? And we give food out ungaurded(not saying we shouldnt) but a few days later some war lord takes it. The supplys everything. Any one agree with me? >Hillhulk<
to hillhulk.. it’s Afghanistan.. claude, just too many SIMPLE spelling mistakes to fix.. what I’m getting at is the average American wouldn’t know their asshole from their breakfast. America is the worlds largest 3rd world country - when taking into consideration the homelessness, poverty and general illiteracy. In four years, the United States has spent close to $500 billion on the war in Iraq. Do you not think this money would have been better spent on educating, clothing and feeding it’s people?
Yes, 9/11 was an atrocity but it was not a free ticket to go out and invade other nations. The 1st retaliation (heading into Afghanistan)was completely understandable - your country was invaded a most horrific way.. But HERE is where things should have stopped.
Because Mr.Bush did not get the results he was looking for, he decided to keep his troops in the general region. He used the premise of democracy to continue invading middle eastern nations. This invasion was for one thing and one thing alone.. To get oil for cheaper prices. Now with the price of oil hitting world highs, we can now see that Mr. Bush has done nothing my make a fool of himself and his country. $500 BILLION, MR BUSH……FOR FUEL! Why didn’t you spend it on your own people?
(Hillhulk) to mike: I do agree with you in most respects. However I do believe that the USA is going down the tubes but not to the point of a third world country “yet” It is also still the home of the free. Here the little guy has a chance. In other places the little guy won’t get a chance… That said I also do think that we “Americans” should try to start paying that HUGE debt over are head… I also think that this county is full of corruption yes. BUT I also Know there is still hope… P.S. Mike when I first wrote on here I was half dead from sleep deprivation. So I am very sorry about any spelling errors I made. I will try to remember to check my spelling better. P.P.S. I do like others input.