FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What did Bush lie about?





S3nd K3ys
Without referring to libbie propaganda... I want a libbie to explain why you believe Bush lied to the American people.

Please provide facts to substantiate your claims or be sure to make it clear that they're 'opinions'.
Herbz3
He didnt lie, he just didnt tell us what he was trying to do.....

He went into iraq searching for weapons of mass destruction (which, given the nature of Iraq, could have been there) didnt find any AND then continued to throw Saddam out of office and AMERICANIZE the country.

He should of left the country alone if he didnt find anything and pulled any and all forces that we had in there out of the country.

He should of left it to the United Nations to determine if Saddam was a threat worth wasting billions of dollars for and then went in. He took the shorter and ultimately less effective route of Brute force to take down saddam. (we all know that he wanted to do it because his dad couldnt.)
S3nd K3ys
Herbz3 wrote:
...
He should of left it to the United Nations to determine if ...


ROFLMAO

Are you serious?

Laughing Laughing Laughing
shr3dd
The U.N. is worthless. The US is SOVEREIGN. Most people don't know what that means, so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something. Screw the U.N. and screw Kofi Ana (that money laundering scumbag). The U.N. should not exist. I beg someone to list anything that the U.N. does that is truely beneficial.
4f
no matter weather he lies or not
what he do is good for his people
S3nd K3ys
Oops. Embarassed

Deleted.
gonzo
S3nd K3ys wrote:
substantiate your claims


Perhaps he lied about being a Christian. The night before the election he sanctioned homosexual unions despite the clarity of sodom and gomorrah.
tidruG
shr3dd wrote:
... so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something...

Finally, straight out from an American's mouth. "We don't need anyone's permission to decalre war on any country. We don't need to justify ourselves to any other country." That seemed to be what you were saying. Confused

Sorry I responded in this thread. You won't see me doing that again. I can't get into another flame war. Rest assured however, the moment this turns into a flame war, this topic will get closed.
tidruG
S3nd K3ys wrote:
4f wrote:
no matter weather he lies or not
what he do is good for his people


HuH?

Have you seen what he does to his people?


Wake up dude.

The guy was a ruthless murderer of women and children.
Did you get confused about which thread this is? You were probably intending to post this in the "Saddam Trial" thread. However, since you don't want me to "put words into your mouth" or to think for you, I'll disregard my common sense and assume you were referring to Bush (Evil grin)
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
... so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something...

Finally, straight out from an American's mouth. "We don't need anyone's permission to decalre war on any country. We don't need to justify ourselves to any other country." That seemed to be what you were saying. Confused

Sorry I responded in this thread. You won't see me doing that again. I can't get into another flame war. Rest assured however, the moment this turns into a flame war, this topic will get closed.


So you come in to stir up the pot then leave?

Perhaps you should retract your statement.

What you claim is taken out of context and is therefore not relevant to this conversation..
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:
Did you get confused about which thread this is?


Oops, yeah. Deleted.
tidruG
S3nd K3ys wrote:
tidruG wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
... so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something...

Finally, straight out from an American's mouth. "We don't need anyone's permission to decalre war on any country. We don't need to justify ourselves to any other country." That seemed to be what you were saying. Confused

Sorry I responded in this thread. You won't see me doing that again. I can't get into another flame war. Rest assured however, the moment this turns into a flame war, this topic will get closed.


So you come in to stir up the pot then leave?

Perhaps you should retract your statement.

What you claim is taken out of context and is therefore not relevant to this conversation..

Yes, sorry. I ws irritated at something else. Took my frustration out in this thread. Embarassed
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
tidruG wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
... so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something...

Finally, straight out from an American's mouth. "We don't need anyone's permission to decalre war on any country. We don't need to justify ourselves to any other country." That seemed to be what you were saying. Confused

Sorry I responded in this thread. You won't see me doing that again. I can't get into another flame war. Rest assured however, the moment this turns into a flame war, this topic will get closed.


So you come in to stir up the pot then leave?

Perhaps you should retract your statement.

What you claim is taken out of context and is therefore not relevant to this conversation..

Yes, sorry. I ws irritated at something else. Took my frustration out in this thread. Embarassed


Good thread to take your frustrations out on eh? Wink

Quote:
and assume you were referring to Bush
The libby's wouldn't argue you on that point. Laughing Laughing
tidruG
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Good thread to take your frustrations out on eh? Wink
Nah, it was the thread which was open when I put the phone down. I just posted whatever came to my head, I'm afraid.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
and assume you were referring to Bush
The libby's wouldn't argue you on that point. Laughing Laughing

Nah, no matter what you say about the liberals, they can't possible not argue about that, especially with turbanated people in those pictures... unless George Bush has a secret army of turban-wearing Americans who kill people terrorist-style Shocked
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Laughing
Herbz3
This topic is gettin way off course, but you people do have some interesting points....
atomictoyz
Mission Accomplished!

More specifically during the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

Well, I've yet to see a victory in Iraq?

Oh...


You said liberals response!

Sorry Embarassed

I guess Right Wingnut fanatics opinions don't count! Shocked


Peace,
Atomic
Herbz3
atomictoyz wrote:
Mission Accomplished!
More specifically during the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."
Well, I've yet to see a victory in Iraq?
Oh...
You said liberals response!
Sorry Embarassed
I guess Right Wingnut fanatics opinions don't count! Shocked
Peace,
Atomic


Arrow Arrow Since when did the war in Iraq begin on September 11th Question That is unless bush was trying to start a war with Iraq after Sep. 11
SunburnedCactus
I'm highly surprised how little the word "oil" has been used in connection with Bush and Iraq here.

In any case it seems to be mainly that and his boshing of the american economy which seems to raise a few hackles...
hive
I am just curious to know what do you guys think about Michael's Moore Fahrenheit documentary.
Have you ever seen it?
tidruG
hive wrote:
I am just curious to know what do you guys think about Michael's Moore Fahrenheit documentary.
Have you ever seen it?

Well, probably... the Democrats loved it, and the Republicans found some errors in it. You'll find sites on the Net damning a lot of the statements in that documentary, and you'll also find sites on the Net using the statements in that documentary to argue their political ideology...

Personally, I found it entertaining... I won't comment further Wink
atomictoyz
Herbz3 wrote:
atomictoyz wrote:
Mission Accomplished!
More specifically during the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."
Well, I've yet to see a victory in Iraq?
Oh...
You said liberals response!
Sorry Embarassed
I guess Right Wingnut fanatics opinions don't count! Shocked
Peace,
Atomic


Arrow Arrow Since when did the war in Iraq begin on September 11th Question That is unless bush was trying to start a war with Iraq after Sep. 11


THe US military keeps a group of Rangers on Standby at all times for Covert Penetrations. The US had Covert Ops in Iraq from the time of the prewar efforts in 1991 until this day. There are many countries other than Iraq in which these operation are being executed. Other countries do the same thing to us but the news doesn't advertise those events.

Peace,
Atomic
S3nd K3ys
hive wrote:
I am just curious to know what do you guys think about Michael's Moore Fahrenheit documentary.
Have you ever seen it?


First of all, Farenheit 9/11 was not a documentary!

A documentary is defined as presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter. In the very beginning of the film, it stated that it was based on opinion and not to be taken as fact. (I don't remeber the exact words).

Secondly, MM is just another fat-ass hollywood lieberal with an adgenda that thinks they can project their ' skewed perception' to the public as fact. Many things, while factual in content, are lacking objective arguements from both sides, or taken completely out of context. (See "The Blind Men and the Elephant")
lib
shr3dd wrote:
The U.N. is worthless. The US is SOVEREIGN. Most people don't know what that means, so I'll tell you. That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something. Screw the U.N. and screw Kofi Ana (that money laundering scumbag). The U.N. should not exist. I beg someone to list anything that the U.N. does that is truely beneficial.

Let's see what sovereignty really is about:
encyclopedia.com wrote:
supreme authority in a political community. The concept of sovereignty has had a long history of development, and it may be said that every political theorist since Plato has dealt with the notion in some manner, although not always explicitly. Jean Bodin was the first theorist to formulate a modern concept of sovereignty. In his Six Bookes of a Commonweale (1576) Bodin asserted that the prince, or the sovereign, has the power to declare law. Thomas Hobbes later furthered the concept of kingly sovereignty by stating that the king not only declares law but creates it; he thereby gave the sovereign both absolute moral and political power. Hobbes, like other social-contract theorists, asserted that the king derives his power from a populace who have collectively given up their own former personal sovereignty and power and placed it irretrievably in the king. The concept of sovereignty was closely related to the growth of the modern nation-state, and today the term is used almost exclusively to describe the attributes of a state rather than a person. A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs. In its external relations it claims the right to enforce its own conception of rights and to declare war.[b]

source
So, yes, the US is sovereign. However, let's see what wikipedia has to say:
wikipedia wrote:
Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments.

According to encyclopedia.com, the libertarians aren't alone in that thinking:
encyclopedia.com wrote:
This description of a sovereign state is denied, however, by those who assert that international law is binding. Because states are limited by treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted by the United Nations Charter to commit aggression at will, they argue that the absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the past. [b]In current international practice this view is generally accepted.[b] The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for restraining the exercise of sovereignty.

Maybe because Iraq figures in the list of sovereign states:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-sovereign-states?method=6
If you want the credibility of the source in listing states as Sovereign, :
answers.com wrote:
In order to be listed here as a de facto independent country, Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention from 1933 is followed, which means that the entity should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Also, the entity doesn't accept that the state de jure comprises part of the territory of another country................................... There are 201 entities on this list. It corresponds to:

* 193 countries, including:
o 191 United Nations member states
o Taiwan (Republic of China)
o Vatican City (Holy See)
* Six de-facto independent countries (Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria)
* Two entities recognized by many countries but de-facto not independent, Palestine and Western Sahara.

Not listed below are various disputed territories which fall into neither of the last two categories, including Jubaland, Puntland, Cabinda, Kosovo, Kurdistan (Iraq), and Kurdistan (Turkey).


The sovereignty you're talking about -
shr3dd wrote:
The U.N. is worthless. The US is SOVEREIGN. Most people don't know what that means, so I'll tell you. [b]That means the US doesn't have to do what any other country tells us to and doesn't have to ask permission to do something. Screw the U.N. and screw Kofi Ana (that money laundering scumbag). The U.N. should not exist. I beg someone to list anything that the U.N. does that is truely beneficial.

Apparently, neither does Iraq... it's sovereign too. Maybe the libs are right in rejecting outright sovereignty. If no other country or international organization can question America's actions, then what gives America the right to question Iraq?

*This post in no way suggests that Iraq anti-humanity regime should not be questioned. I do believe it's a good thing that Saddam has been ousted. I'm just arguing about "sovereignty" and its credits/discredits.
geeren
Herbz3 wrote:
He didnt lie, he just didnt tell us what he was trying to do.....

He went into iraq searching for weapons of mass destruction (which, given the nature of Iraq, could have been there) didnt find any AND then continued to throw Saddam out of office and AMERICANIZE the country.

He should of left the country alone if he didnt find anything and pulled any and all forces that we had in there out of the country.

He should of left it to the United Nations to determine if Saddam was a threat worth wasting billions of dollars for and then went in. He took the shorter and ultimately less effective route of Brute force to take down saddam. (we all know that he wanted to do it because his dad couldnt.)


so he lied, because he said, that he went to iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but it isn't there, and there are plentty of other country's with weapons of mass destruction, like: israel, pakistan, india, libie and north korea, but why does bush don't atack them? because he can't earn money from them.
hchsmustang09
geeren wrote:
Herbz3 wrote:
He didnt lie, he just didnt tell us what he was trying to do.....

He went into iraq searching for weapons of mass destruction (which, given the nature of Iraq, could have been there) didnt find any AND then continued to throw Saddam out of office and AMERICANIZE the country.

He should of left the country alone if he didnt find anything and pulled any and all forces that we had in there out of the country.

He should of left it to the United Nations to determine if Saddam was a threat worth wasting billions of dollars for and then went in. He took the shorter and ultimately less effective route of Brute force to take down saddam. (we all know that he wanted to do it because his dad couldnt.)


so he lied, because he said, that he went to iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but it isn't there, and there are plentty of other country's with weapons of mass destruction, like: israel, pakistan, india, libie and north korea, but why does bush don't atack them? because he can't earn money from them.



Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so there is allowed to keep nuclear weapons. Iraq on the otherhand did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so is not allowed to keep nuclear weapons
gonzo
hive wrote:
Michael's Moore Fahrenheit [excrement].
Have you ever seen it?


Yes. It was sickening. Now go watch Fahrenheit 411

http://www.f411.com/

hchsmustang09 wrote:
Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so there is allowed to keep nuclear weapons. I


allowed? excuse you? do you not understand what a treaty is? And that internaltional "law" is a GROSS MISNOMER?!!?


geeren wrote:
he said, that he went to iraq for weapons of mass destruction


Wow, are you sure? Cuz if you are you must have a VERBATIM quote from Bush. Please provide the url I'd like to see that.

geeren wrote:
weapons of mass destruction, but it isn't ther


So when saddam insane used WMDs on his own people, the kurds, killing hundreds of thousands of them.... wait, are you claiming that genocide didn't happen??? Cuz you're going to need to go down that road to deny that saddam insane possesses them. Are you sure you want to contradict facts? Sure, you're entitled to; it'll be a more entertaining discussion...

..

Sovereignty need ONLY be respected in JUST states. Those states who inflict or tolerate the wholesale slaughter of it's respective citizens do not deserve "Sovereign-respect"

lib wrote:
If no other country or international organization can question America's actions, then what gives America the right to question Iraq?.


ohh that would be that pesky justice thing again. feeling conflicted? yeah, subjective morality does tend to do that to people confronted with objective truth. All ideologies aren't "equally true" or "valuable". Some are patently wrong. Hopefully you'll be able to accept this soon.
lib
gonzo wrote:
Sovereignty need ONLY be respected in JUST states. Those states who inflict or tolerate the wholesale slaughter of it's respective citizens do not deserve "Sovereign-respect"

Did you miss out this part of my post, or did you just choose to ignore it, because you wanted to have something to say about my post? Tch Tch.
lib wrote:
*This post in no way suggests that Iraq anti-humanity regime should not be questioned. I do believe it's a good thing that Saddam has been ousted.

gonzo wrote:
ohh that would be that pesky justice thing again.

Pesky justice? Nice attitude.
gonzo wrote:
objective truth.

And what is your objective truth? That America is superior to all other nations and is therefore unquestionable? That America can do whatever it wants without giving a damn about other countries? PNAC attitude.
gonzo wrote:
All ideologies aren't "equally true" or "valuable". Some are patently wrong.
I know. The real question is... which ones?
gonzo wrote:
Hopefully you'll be able to accept this soon.

Hopefully, you'll be able to accept it sooner. With your kind of attitude (Read above), you need to accept it more than you would like to think I need to, and much faster than you would have wanted me to accept it.
If you're as smart as you claim to be, then you'd know how Bush used public fear after 9/11 by repeatedly linking iraq to 9/11 and putting even more fear into people's minds by telling them of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs. It's been stated without resistance in the past in these forums, and I am too lazy to go into it again. You probably know it, but accepting it or perhaps admitting it is a bitter pill to swallow?
gonzo wrote:
Wow, are you sure? Cuz if you are you must have a VERBATIM quote from Bush.

Look, more than 1 quote... in fact, a whole horde of quotes:
Quote:
State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...

Statement to UN, 7 February 2003:
The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons.

Speech to supporters in Oak Ridge, July 2004:
Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq...

We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them....

In the world after 11 September, that was a risk we could not afford to take. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialise.

Actually, ****** it. THose are only Bush's quotes. Open the source and see the quotes of all the other top Bush administration members:
source
gonzo wrote:
Are you sure you want to contradict facts?

Are you sure you want to contradict facts? Because after all, pretty much everyone, including dear President Bush and his administration have admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq. There are too many news articles about the reports clearly stating that Iraq had NO WMDs. I consider it a waste of my time and your apparent intelligence to link you to some article about the absence of WMDs in Iraq.
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
Bush and his administration have admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq.


Bush and his administration have admitted that there were no WMDs FOUND in Iraq.
gonzo
lib wrote:
gonzo wrote:
Sovereignty need ONLY be respected in JUST states. Those states who inflict or tolerate the wholesale slaughter of it's respective citizens do not deserve "Sovereign-respect"

Did you miss out this part of my post


As your posts are generally bereft of your own cogent thought your question is really a trick question, isn't it?



lib wrote:
*This post in no way suggests [much].


So why the ad naseum blather precursor? How much of your candle is left?

Quote:

gonzo wrote:
ohh that would be that pesky justice thing again.

Pesky justice? Nice attitude.


pesky to liberalism. subtlety is oft wasted on libs.

lib wrote:

gonzo wrote:
objective truth.

And what is your objective truth?


HUH? "my objective truth" CLEARLY cannot be "objective truth". Can't you understand that??


I'd address the rest of your response but I don't want to get "bogged down" in your "quagmire".


http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm
lib
gonzo wrote:
HUH? "my objective truth" CLEARLY cannot be "objective truth". Can't you understand that??

Apparently, subtlety is oft-wasted on you too.
gonzo wrote:
pesky to liberalism. subtlety is oft wasted on libs.

Oh, I wonder if that was why I wrote about being just and being answerable, while you've been walking around with the "I'm better than you (irrespective of who you are except if you're a Republican American)" attitude.
gonzo wrote:
So why the ad naseum blather precursor?

Read the post again. Maybe this time you'll notice that what I wrote had more to do with what sovereignty is about, and whether a soveriegn country should be answerable to the "international community" or not.
gonzo wrote:
http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm

Yet again, all I need to do is to quote something I have already written:
lib wrote:
gonzo wrote:
All ideologies aren't "equally true" or "valuable". Some are patently wrong.
I know. The real question is... which ones?


Yet again, you have proven to see what you want to see and have ignored the rest.
Herbz3
Everyone already knows that the only reason Bush went into Iraq was for American purposes, including money......
The only way that we can fix whats happened in Iraq is by gettin the F' out of there because its only gonna get worse.
As for the Nuke treaty, Iraq didnt violate it obviously as they didnt find any weapons of mass destruction (or did they?)
mengshi200
Yes,polictican should be a honest man.
yzy
Oh,my God! So ferocious!
yzy
I can't imagine that what are the children learn from the war,harm or force.You see this news about the a Palestinian boy carries a toy gun in front of Israeli troops during a joint protest by Israeli, Palestinian and international peace activists against the controversial Israeli barrier in the West Bank village of Bilin November 4, 2005. Israeli soldiers shot and critically wounded a 13-year-old Palestinian carrying a toy weapon in the occupied West Bank on Thursday and the Israeli army said troops had mistaken him for a gunman. I just hope peace ! No war![/url]
wrightbros
At first it seemed fun to see a republican (Bush) being such a bad president. But now it is getting serious. Lying to go to war? It just makes america seem pretty $h ty.
OnlyOneLife
Refering to the horrible pictures of people being raped.
In the U.S. Prison Camps, they physically, mentally, and emotionally abuse the IRAQIE soldiers. Yet noone does a thing. I think the U.S. is just too corrupt.
bananaphone
gonzo
wrightbros wrote:
Lying to go to war? .


I've already successfully used this example to explain the sitution to middle school children:

http://frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15481



Why do you refuse to understand?


(answer: No, bob didn't lie)
S3nd K3ys
gonzo wrote:


(answer: No, bob didn't lie)


NOW I see where that post came from!

Laughing Laughing
Flower Powder
Well if you want to know why some non american people did not accept Bush and Blair lies, of course you will have to open your mind to other point of views generally speaking. We all know now that there was no mass-destructive weapons in Iraq. But what we know for sure is that Iraq has potentially one of the last reserve of oil on this planet, a huge amount of this substance that will get rarer very soon, so that will be worth a lot very soon also... So basically, Bush & Blair have kidnapped Iraq's Treasure on the excuse of eliminating a dictator who was also very dangerous to the world.... In actual fact, they have already changed the Constitution and Tax laws of this country, so they can administrate as they wish the Oil business there... They lied to us, they killed your children, this should be more dammaging and should encourage you not us to think upon those lies. Peace be with you...
S3nd K3ys
Flower Powder wrote:
... We all know now that there was no mass-destructive weapons in Iraq.


No, we don't.

Quote:

But what we know for sure is that Iraq has potentially one of the last reserve of oil on this planet, ...


No, it's not.

Ahh, ignorance.
SunburnedCactus
I suppose you could deduce those thoughts from watching one of the news channels for a few minutes.
rwojick
First off, I am not a libby, however, I do beleive that ALL governement officials should handle information flawlessly or take responsibility for their errors.

Bush got on TV and used the word "evidence". He said to beleive otherwise is to "hope against Hope" and "fly in the face of the EVIDENCE.

Well, if he HAD evidence then why didn't he PUT IN ON THE TABLE?

No, he was telling Hussein to get out of Iraq WHILE he was waiting for his evidence to come in".

Then,he went to war WHILE he was waiting for his evidence to come in. Well, his evidence NEVER came in. That is a fact.

Suppose I said I had evidence that you robbed the bank? Then, I said "put him in jail" and I will bring you the evidence later. Then, I never showed up with the evidence but you stayed in jail.

That is EXACTLY what the US and the Constitution IS NOT.

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. And "proven" means "evidence". You cannot have one without the other. Get it, or are you a "conservative" that never passed seventh grade civics?
spelbound
I live in Canada, and it really amazes me at the kind of attention, this Bush guy is getting. From our point of view, we Canadians consider Bush an uneducated clown. And for the first time, most of us say we are glad we do not live in the U.S. We used to envy the American lifestyle, but now, we are proud of our own. Not only that, we constantly get tourist into our city from the U.S. and the general concensus is that they wished they lived here too.

Bush has been lying from the beginning. Iraq is a big lie. Korea has proven it has weapons of mass destruction, but the U.S. leaves them alone. Still today, no weapons have been found. Then Bush talk about liberating the Iraqi people. If that is his real plan, then what about all the other countries that need liberating. Iraq was a weak country, and an easy target. I think the true goal was for Bush to somehow find some credit for saving the world from a terrible evil, yet he seems to be failing. Bush approval ratings at an all time low. But this is just one Canadians point of view.

However we still hate our winters!
BriBri72
Didn't Osama bin Laden claim credit for 9/11, wasn't there corroborating evidence that it was the Al Qaeda that perpetrated that horror? So connect the dots for me.. how is the Iraqi war leading to a victory in the war on terror? What terrorist acts have they been responsible for or claimed credit for? We have shared an uneasy animosity with Saddam since he stopped being our ally. That was over a decade ago. Why the sudden rush? The other question I have is if you really had ready access to weapons of mass destruction and your country was invaded by a hostile force, powerful enough to completely wipe your country of the face of God's green earth, wouldn't you employ them? Saddam had no reason to expect that we would treat him and his country gently, not when we invaded the country without the countenance of the United Nations. I cannot understand why he would have held back. What was he saving the weapons of mass destruction for? A rainy day?
S3nd K3ys
spelbound wrote:
I

Bush has been lying from the beginning. Iraq is a big lie.


I have yet to see ANY OF YOU dolts that claim Bush lied PROVE ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

Rediculous.

If you have proof, post it up. Otherwise, STFU. Rolling Eyes
olah
Bush is doing what he needs to do to make sure that everyone in the world is unthreatened by this country.

There were no human rights in Iraq when US forces moved in on them, so "Americanizing" the country is a decided improvement.

Further more, the UN has exploited more victims of war than you can possibly imagine, and are the primary abusers of the Iraqi prisoners. They have sold countless women and children into Prostitution, I kid you not, so "leave it to the un" is a ridiculous notion.

Iraq sucks.
Dorsk82
Here are two contradictory positions for you both stated by the President. Bush claims emphatically to have actually found WMDs in the first and then later winds up officially admitting there were none in Iraq.

Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

Quote:
The United States admitted on Wednesday that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) before the US-led invasion in March 2003, but President George W. Bush defended the war, saying "the path to safety is the path of action."


http://english.people.com.cn/200410/07/eng20041007_159245.html

Sorry man but Bush can't escape the hypocrisy of his own words! Razz
n0obie4life
Dorsk82, please note that all copy and pasted text have to be in quote tags, according to the Forum Rules.

I've done that for you this time. Please remember to do that Wink
Dorsk82
Thanks man I meant to do that but I didn't really know if the quote button would work for text from other sites as well. That's why I just italicized it to try and make it clear! Thanks for keeping the post! Cool
S3nd K3ys
This is from http://www.truthorfiction.com concerning the so-called LIES that the left is accusing Bush of.

It shows a very different picture than what they're telling you on the news. In fact, it shows more proof that those claiming Bush lied are LYING!

Quote:
Bush Lied? Quotes from Democrats About the Threat of Iraq-Truth!
bullet Summary of the eRumor
Accusations that President Bush lied to the American people about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are counterbalanced by quotes from prominent Democrats about Saddam Hussein and weapons in Iraq.
Most of these statements were during the debate over whether to use force against Iraq.





bullet The Truth
There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.


.............>

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

Subject: Bush Lied??

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be--, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!

indecentexposure
I don't think he ever lied. He's just way over his head.

Do you really think he'd be President right now if Daddy didn't lead him up to it?

Plus, wasn't his brother governor of Florida? :X But, besides that.. Bush just hasn't done what the country needs to do in certain situations.

Such as, Hurricane Katrina, the War on Iraq.. etcetc. He's.. what.. vacationing during both of those?

I'd provide facts, but you can just as easily look up news articles as I can.
S3nd K3ys
indecentexposure wrote:
I don't think he ever lied. He's just way over his head.

Do you really think he'd be President right now if Daddy didn't lead him up to it?

Plus, wasn't his brother governor of Florida? :X But, besides that.. Bush just hasn't done what the country needs to do in certain situations.

Such as, Hurricane Katrina, the War on Iraq.. etcetc. He's.. what.. vacationing during both of those?

I'd provide facts, but you can just as easily look up news articles as I can.


Vacationing? Yeah, he never did a minute of work the whole time. Typical left wing rhetoric.

Over his head? He's the only one with enough sack to deal with this situation like it should have been delt with decades ago. (Terrorists) And as I've said, he's doing a good job, despite what the MSM is reporting.

Katrina? The federal government (aside from FEMA, but they're incompetent), is the LAST responsible party in any disaster. First responsibility to your survival is YOU. Then LOCAL government. Then STATE government. Then FEDERAL government.

Besides, Bush had declared states of emergency BEFORE Katrina giving individual states the ability to access federal aid. It's not Bush's fault the states blew it. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
I'd provide facts, but you can just as easily look up news articles as I can.


No you couldn't. Or you already would have.

SOMEBODY already would have.

ANYBODY already would have.

But they haven't.. Shocked
indecentexposure
S3nd K3ys wrote:
indecentexposure wrote:
I don't think he ever lied. He's just way over his head.

Do you really think he'd be President right now if Daddy didn't lead him up to it?

Plus, wasn't his brother governor of Florida? :X But, besides that.. Bush just hasn't done what the country needs to do in certain situations.

Such as, Hurricane Katrina, the War on Iraq.. etcetc. He's.. what.. vacationing during both of those?

I'd provide facts, but you can just as easily look up news articles as I can.


Vacationing? Yeah, he never did a minute of work the whole time. Typical left wing rhetoric.

Over his head? He's the only one with enough sack to deal with this situation like it should have been delt with decades ago. (Terrorists) And as I've said, he's doing a good job, despite what the MSM is reporting.

Katrina? The federal government (aside from FEMA, but they're incompetent), is the LAST responsible party in any disaster. First responsibility to your survival is YOU. Then LOCAL government. Then STATE government. Then FEDERAL government.

Besides, Bush had declared states of emergency BEFORE Katrina giving individual states the ability to access federal aid. It's not Bush's fault the states blew it. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
I'd provide facts, but you can just as easily look up news articles as I can.


No you couldn't. Or you already would have.

SOMEBODY already would have.

ANYBODY already would have.

But they haven't.. Shocked


lol, typical right wing approach.

I'm not against Bush. I'm not even strongly liberal. I'm more moderate than anything.

So, whenever Bush was introduced to the first terrorist attack back on September 11th, it was appropiate for him to continue his photoshoot at an elementary school? And when he was confirmed that the nation was officially under attack, he should have just sat there with a goofy look on his face and continued reading an elementary book?

Bush is a pawn. Either he's stupid, or he's incredibly smart and putting off one amazing act.

I'm not posting any articles because if you wanted to do research, you could. I'm not doing it for you. Plus, I have to go to class in like.. 3 minutes.
indecentexposure
And by the way, do you seriously believe that the war is actually about terrorism? That Bush is trying to whipe terrorism?

*cough* oil *cough*

He, along with his cabinet, just put fear into America, so they'd be alright going into war. Why do you think majority of America doesn't think we should be in Iraq anymore? Because the majority has realized it doesn't have to do with terrorism anymore.

What exactly did Iraq do whenever we bombed Baghdad?

Anyways, I'm off to class.
S3nd K3ys
indecentexposure wrote:


So, whenever Bush was introduced to the first terrorist attack back on September 11th, it was appropiate for him to continue his photoshoot at an elementary school? And when he was confirmed that the nation was officially under attack, he should have just sat there with a goofy look on his face and continued reading an elementary book?

Bush is a pawn. Either he's stupid, or he's incredibly smart and putting off one amazing act.



Um. Yeah. Terrorist attacks have been going on for decades against the US and free world.

Quote:
I'm not posting any articles because if you wanted to do research, you could. I'm not doing it for you. Plus, I have to go to class in like.. 3 minutes.


I think I've done more research (especially on this topic) than most on this board, and if you'd care to go thru some of my old posts you'd see that. Unfortunately, you're just full of propoganda that's being fed to you by the MSM and DU. So in reality, the reason you're not is because you can't provide proof for what you claim. Or, (like I said), you would have. Wink
finding_primo
Just like NOFX said in one of their songs; ' we all know George Bush an an imbosil, he likes sex but hates homosexuals...' and in another of their songs, it goes on about how he isn't smart and he bought his way into school. NOFX don't like him, and neither do I. I know he will probably never effect me in any way because I love in england but I do hate him. I know it must be hard to run pretty much the whole world. But I think Kerry would of been a better president and been more smarter! Tatah people. ^_^
[FuN]goku
he lied about too much.... lets get him!!! xD
jongoldsz
I don't think that Bush lied, but he failed to do the right thing. Also, The US is the actual connection between all the coutries of the world. People from any country can live in the US and be represented. Unlike the UN the US takes action. The UN is a money based alliance that can't survive if it had no money. Also, it doesn't even have its own soldiers, it borrows them from the countries that are in it.
coolclay
We finally get a president that stands up for whats right, and doesn't fold just because a bunch of liberals, and the media talk bad about him, and few people can even see that. Our president stands up against terrorism, and stands up for whats right and he gets trashed for it daily, thats sad.

If you go to my website (www.coolclay.info) I have 2 links, one is to a really funny movie quote from Ghost Breakers, the other is a quote from an Iraqi women and her views on the war, and President Bush.
OnlyOneLife
Bush lies about everything so when ever he talks, just don't listen cause you know it's BS.
rark
He has lied about almost everything that he has promised.
gonzo
dzo
Americans seem so quick to turn everything into a big hollywood film with good guys and bad guys etc. It seems to be ok to go around war mongering and killing hundreds of thousands of people as long as your "the good guys"

The truth is that the US has much more "Weapons of Mass Destruction" than anyone else, has started more wars in the last 50 years than anyone else, and has caused more death in the world than any one else.

Its hard to believe that people actually stick up for people like Bush, but then, its hard to believe footage of Germans cheering for Hitler.

If there is any such thing as "The good guys" its the people in the world that do as much as possible to stop war and death. The Bush administration seems to jump into a war willy nilly. Its not the case ofcourse. All of these wars were planned long before 9/11. Nobody in the west seems to care about middle eastern people Sad

In answer to the question "what did Bush lie about, you just have to look at the fact that iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no link to al quieda, and that predominant people in the bush administration have made a great deal of money.
Painshock
what did Bush lie about? well it would be easier to ask what did he NOT lie about? the answer would be a lot more simpler and shorter.
after all what happened on 11th of september 2001 was unfortunate and very tragic, it started a chase that still hasnt seen an ending and is still being run in secrecy. in fact, the destructive terrorist act was a plus for the US; they got a reason to go and plunder the land in the Middle East, and cover it all up telling to the public that it is a war against terrorists. well they got Saddam, but apparently that was just a trick to prove ppl the war is all about terrorists. well it could also be that Saddam was the only person preventing the US plundering the land from Iraq to pump oil from. the whole "war against terrorists" is a cover for what controls everything in this world these days; Money. underneath the Middle East ground there is a massive amount of pure money running free and the US is only trying to get their hands on that, the black gold, oil. i wonder if they have forgotten Osama Bin Laden already...
Srs2388
sodom and gomorrah, eh i agree with that 120% you can't be Christian and support gay rights....
I havn't been able to find anyone at all who could agree with me on this though
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Katrina? The federal government (aside from FEMA, but they're incompetent), is the LAST responsible party in any disaster. First responsibility to your survival is YOU. Then LOCAL government. Then STATE government. Then FEDERAL government.



Do you realize that it's not easy to get out of a city in an emergency? And it's especially difficult if you're poor. What are you supposed to do? Why did it take George three days to get there? Here we have one of the biggest disaster areas our country has seen in many years, besides 911, and our president takes 3 days to respond. He didn't take three days to respond to 911. He wouldn't take three days to respond if NYC were devastated by a hurricane. Why not?

S3nd K3ys, you keep saying that George Bush never lied. Well how about when he was standing on the Naval ship proclaim Victory in Iraq. On that day George Bush most certainly lied. We're still there. Our people are still dieing there. Maybe George Bush doesn't realize that just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. Somehow though, the common people fall for this.

Also, about Bushing lieing about WMD:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

And how about George doing illegal wiretaps on Americans. That's just dandy. Checks and balances suck, right? All hail the Chief! The President should be king!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/



Quote:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the 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 leaders. That 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 any country."

-Hermann Goering

It's scarry how much our country is starting to look like this. I hope the backlash is great enough to overcome the conservatives in the next house elections. Bush approval has fallen dramatically--I think that's for the best.
dzo
@mschnell

I agree the Bush administration seems to be using the same kind of Direction as the national socialist party did.

The fire in the cathedral that they used as an excuse to put left wingers into concentration camps is far too close to the 9/11-guantanamo situation for comfort.

Also, I would like to give props to people who still claim Iraq did/does have weapons of mass destruction. Even after Bush and Blair admit to having been mislead and that there never were weapons of mass destruction... some people just wont quit their standing Laughing
Soulfire
Srs2388 wrote:
sodom and gomorrah, eh i agree with that 120% you can't be Christian and support gay rights....
I havn't been able to find anyone at all who could agree with me on this though


I don't support gay rights, but I am not against them. The bible tells us not to judge, which text is more important?

As for people who are so down on Bush. He got an evil dictator who was torturing his people out of power, and you dislike him for that? Maybe because you have to make a couple sacrifices here, like higher gas prices or whatever. How quick we are to blame someone, and usually that blame goes straight to the president, it's not all his fault.

He went in looking for weapons of mass destruction, which could've easily been there (and still could be). He didn't find them. Most people say to just leave, but he tried to liberate the people, and is criticized at home. The American Way is working, for the most part, here, why wouldn't you want to spread freedom? Why don't you want to liberate people?

I look at it at this: Let's remove the dictator before he nukes America, to be safe.

And if we pull out our troops now, Iraq will collapse on itself and another totalitarian government would reign again, and they would hate us that much more overseas because they would say it's our fault.

Starting the war wasn't handled the best, but we must finish what we started.
mschnell
Soulfire wrote:

I look at it at this: Let's remove the dictator before he nukes America, to be safe.


Ok, Soulfire. First, who defines the term "evil dictator" as you said before? Maybe some people feel that George Bush is an "evil president." Does that make it so a leader elsewhere should feel free to attack the United States? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in 9/11. They thought we were evil so they attacked us! Maybe you just provided them justification for attacking us.

Second, what nukes are you talking about? If you know something about that then maybe you should contact George Bush yourself. I know he'd love to know where those nukes are! Honestly, I don't like "evil dictators" either, but I find your aproach to the situation to be somewhat absurd.
Soulfire
mschnell wrote:
Soulfire wrote:

I look at it at this: Let's remove the dictator before he nukes America, to be safe.


Ok, Soulfire. First, who defines the term "evil dictator" as you said before? Maybe some people feel that George Bush is an "evil president." Does that make it so a leader elsewhere should feel free to attack the United States? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in 9/11. They thought we were evil so they attacked us! Maybe you just provided them justification for attacking us.

Second, what nukes are you talking about? If you know something about that then maybe you should contact George Bush yourself. I know he'd love to know where those nukes are! Honestly, I don't like "evil dictators" either, but I find your aproach to the situation to be somewhat absurd.


Apparently the leader of our nation determines it, he has the power to. And if you don't think someone who tortures people for the twisted pleasure of it is evil, then I think you are absurd.

Leaders elsewhere can attack us, who would stop them? They haven't yet, and most have no reason to. Yes, George Bush just must be evil, I mean he's Christian and everything, down with Satan. People are trying to pin everything and anything they can on him, when some things he can't control.

Extremists are jealous of our freedom and liberty, of our dominating power and influence over the world. They think all Americans are evil, and that's just what they've been taught. President Bush is trying to break that chain, but some people are getting mixed and wrong messages.

The nukes I speak of... Nobody ever said there weren't any in Iraq, and Saddam could have EASILY obtained them. They just haven't found any in Iraq - big difference between not being there and not being found.

Remove this threat from power before he threatens us, sometimes we must be the agressor, and I find your laid-back approach obsurd. If you had the intelligence messages that more attacks were going to come, that there were nukes (as intelligence said), that HUGE problems could arise, would you just sit back and wait until they hit us?
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:



Do you realize that it's not easy to get out of a city in an emergency? And it's especially difficult if you're poor. What are you supposed to do? Why did it take George three days to get there? Here we have one of the biggest disaster areas our country has seen in many years, besides 911, and our president takes 3 days to respond. He didn't take three days to respond to 911. He wouldn't take three days to respond if NYC were devastated by a hurricane. Why not?




Do YOU realize that Bush was there DAYS BEFORE the hurricane even hit, and DECLAIRED a STATE OF EMERGENCY so the states could get started early? Do YOU realize that Mayor School Bus Didn't do squat to get those people out? He even threatened to charge that kid that stole that bus to get those people out of there?

I didn't think so.

Quote:

S3nd K3ys, you keep saying that George Bush never lied. Well how about when he was standing on the Naval ship proclaim Victory in Iraq. On that day George Bush most certainly lied. We're still there. Our people are still dieing there. Maybe George Bush doesn't realize that just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. Somehow though, the common people fall for this.


Why do you kiddys keep trying to say crap like that? That Victory in Iraq WAS a victory. It marked the end of major operations against the organized Iraqi Army. Everything since then has been terrorists and a highly un-organized insurgency.

Maybe YOU don't realize that just because the left tries to twist the truth to facilitate their agenda doesn't mean the rest of the world has to believe the hype.
Jayfarer
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Do YOU realize that Bush was there DAYS BEFORE the hurricane even hit, and DECLAIRED a STATE OF EMERGENCY so the states could get started early? Do YOU realize that Mayor School Bus Didn't do squat to get those people out? He even threatened to charge that kid that stole that bus to get those people out of there?

I didn't think so.

FEMA was irresponsible in their response and in their actions. Bush hired the head of FEMA, a guy who used to rate horses. End of story. What other connection do you need?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Why do you kiddys keep trying to say crap like that? That Victory in Iraq WAS a victory. It marked the end of major operations against the organized Iraqi Army. Everything since then has been terrorists and a highly un-organized insurgency.


When more soldiers are getting killed now than before the "mission accomplished" fiasco on the navy ship, why would you consider that "major combat", other than basing it on semantics?
S3nd K3ys
Jayfarer wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Do YOU realize that Bush was there DAYS BEFORE the hurricane even hit, and DECLAIRED a STATE OF EMERGENCY so the states could get started early? Do YOU realize that Mayor School Bus Didn't do squat to get those people out? He even threatened to charge that kid that stole that bus to get those people out of there?

I didn't think so.

FEMA was irresponsible in their response and in their actions. Bush hired the head of FEMA, a guy who used to rate horses. End of story. What other connection do you need?


Unfortunately for you and your twisted band of haters, Bush DID react early enough. Like I said, (perhaps you missed or, or perhaps you ignored it), he declared states of emergency BEFORE the storm. But it's ok, you can keep blaming him for it. You can also blame him for the earthquakes and the coal miners too if it suits you.

Quote:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Why do you kiddys keep trying to say crap like that? That Victory in Iraq WAS a victory. It marked the end of major operations against the organized Iraqi Army. Everything since then has been terrorists and a highly un-organized insurgency.


When more soldiers are getting killed now than before the "mission accomplished" fiasco on the navy ship, why would you consider that "major combat", other than basing it on semantics?


Major combat against an organized military. Reading and comprehension are key. Bush declared that the war against the military was over. And it was/is. Now, like just about every other war where a dictator has been removed, there's cleanup to do. Get over it.
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Major combat against an organized military. Reading and comprehension are key.


Easy, there...

This war is turning out somewhat like Vietnam and we're finally seeing that we won't be able to have a clear victory. I mean, besides the one that you seem to believe happened long ago...
Jayfarer
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jayfarer wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Do YOU realize that Bush was there DAYS BEFORE the hurricane even hit, and DECLAIRED a STATE OF EMERGENCY so the states could get started early? Do YOU realize that Mayor School Bus Didn't do squat to get those people out? He even threatened to charge that kid that stole that bus to get those people out of there?

I didn't think so.

FEMA was irresponsible in their response and in their actions. Bush hired the head of FEMA, a guy who used to rate horses. End of story. What other connection do you need?


Unfortunately for you and your twisted band of haters, Bush DID react early enough. Like I said, (perhaps you missed or, or perhaps you ignored it), he declared states of emergency BEFORE the storm. But it's ok, you can keep blaming him for it. You can also blame him for the earthquakes and the coal miners too if it suits you.


You're completely ignoring my argument in favor of mindless trolling. It's funny how you're the one who has to resort to making personal shots against the person rather than continuing to debate the issue. Are you actually going to tell me that the Bush administration is completely unaccountable for the error of hiring a man who, simply put, did a bad job? Who likely shouldn't have been hired in the first place? Who Bush complimented on his effort & job during the crisis?

Are you going to tell me that he has no responsibility for the mess up during Katrina, when Bush himself said he claimed responsibility? I know you'd like to label that as some sort of liberal propaganda, but it came straight from the his mouth.

Quote:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Why do you kiddys keep trying to say crap like that? That Victory in Iraq WAS a victory. It marked the end of major operations against the organized Iraqi Army. Everything since then has been terrorists and a highly un-organized insurgency.


When more soldiers are getting killed now than before the "mission accomplished" fiasco on the navy ship, why would you consider that "major combat", other than basing it on semantics?


Major combat against an organized military. Reading and comprehension are key. Bush declared that the war against the military was over. And it was/is. Now, like just about every other war where a dictator has been removed, there's cleanup to do. Get over it.[/quote]

That's semantics. The "cleanup" is quite obviously the longest and most difficult part, but you seem to be content pretending that it's a quick & rosy process. It's misleading to call it "mission accomplished" when there's still chaos and ruin over there. Taking out Saddaam was just part one, and plastering "Mission Accomplished" everywhere was just plain misleading people into thinking we were done.
gonzo
Jayfarer wrote:
You're completely ignoring my argument in favor of mindless trolling. It's funny how you're the one who has to resort to making personal shots


pull that forrest outta your eye, Jayfarer
Soulfire
I've even heard people proclaim that the hurricane was Bush's fault! Yeah, he just called up mother nature and ordered one. I don't think so, but nobody here has been that rediculous.

Bush declared a state of emergency before the storm hit, he (in conjunction with many organizations, including the NWS) warned the people of what was to come, and that they need to leave. It's his fault that they didn't leave and were stranded? Of course the flooded city of New Orleans and thousands of people demanding things from you left and right is going to slow you down a bit.

What did you want Bush to do? Go to every single house in all of Louisiana and Mississippi and force the people out?

It's the people who didn't leave when they were properly warned fault, not the president. Oh, I suppose he could've called mother nature again and said "Wait a minute, I changed my mind." Eh, that sounds like something John Kerry would do.

I used some sarcasm, and I hope you don't take it literal. I tried to make my point.

And, about the "Mission Accomplished" thing. It was accomplished! Saddam was removed and Iraq was about to be reformed, it was just the jump in insurgency that happened afterwords that made us have to stay. What were we going to do? Leave Iraq to collapse on itself and have another torturous dictator come to power and cause this all to happen again? I don't think so, Bush wouldn't abandon the people like that. He promised them freedom, and obviously doesn't intend to go back on his word.
Jayfarer
Soulfire wrote:
I've even heard people proclaim that the hurricane was Bush's fault! Yeah, he just called up mother nature and ordered one. I don't think so, but nobody here has been that rediculous.

Bush declared a state of emergency before the storm hit, he (in conjunction with many organizations, including the NWS) warned the people of what was to come, and that they need to leave. It's his fault that they didn't leave and were stranded? Of course the flooded city of New Orleans and thousands of people demanding things from you left and right is going to slow you down a bit.

What did you want Bush to do? Go to every single house in all of Louisiana and Mississippi and force the people out?


No, I want his administration to be held accountable for the mistake they made in appointing Michael Brown head of FEMA. I want his administration to be held accountable for the late response and misdirection given to the people stranded in the Convention Center. I want his administration to be held accountable for even daring to the praise the job they were doing.

I mean, once again, the man himself went on live, national TV to accept responsibility. How can you argue against that?

Don't get me wrong, Brown, the Mayor, all of them are at fault too. But the administration certainly deserves a piece of the blame.

Quote:

It's the people who didn't leave when they were properly warned fault, not the president. Oh, I suppose he could've called mother nature again and said "Wait a minute, I changed my mind." Eh, that sounds like something John Kerry would do.

I used some sarcasm, and I hope you don't take it literal. I tried to make my point.


Why do people always use this, "They should have left!" argument? It's not so simple. Obviously, leaving is a good idea, but that doesn't mean you leave them to be stranded in anarchy for days. Additionally, what about the poor, or the sick, or the elderly? It's not so easy for them to get out of the state, you know.

Quote:

And, about the "Mission Accomplished" thing. It was accomplished! Saddam was removed and Iraq was about to be reformed, it was just the jump in insurgency that happened afterwords that made us have to stay. What were we going to do? Leave Iraq to collapse on itself and have another torturous dictator come to power and cause this all to happen again? I don't think so, Bush wouldn't abandon the people like that. He promised them freedom, and obviously doesn't intend to go back on his word.


Anyone could have told you there was going to be a "jump in insurgency." When you remove someone from power through military force, you are going to have to do some long term occupation to get things in order. It wasn't a "surprise" that insurgents appeared and started using terrorist tactics.

It's a fact of life that everyone knew. When you take out a government, you are going to have to stay a while to fight the terrorists that inevitably appear, while trying to rebuild the state to defend itself. That's why proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" is such an arrogant and misleading move on their part. Even Karl Rove thinks they shouldn't have had the Mission Accomplished banner.
Soulfire
E: Sorry for double post, see next post.
Soulfire
Okay, I can agree about the Michael Brown part. Although it's not the smartest choice, he is gone now and you still want retribution? What's done is done, and unfortunately we cannot rewrite the past.

What late response? Tell me, how exactly would you respond to a natural disaster of this magnitude. So many people chose to ignore the warnings given to them, and then when we went in to rescue them by helicopter, there were just SO many of them that it took a lot of time.

What misdirection are you talking about? They told the people to leave the convention center because of the post-storm hazards such as disease. Would you rather have left them there in the germ-ridden New Orleans?

He only apologized and "accepted responsibility" because people wouldn't get off of his back and he has so many things to worry about that he didn't feel like battling them anymore, he thought it might satisfy those who do nothing but complain.

You can't really blame anyone for a hurricane or it's aftermath. You can't blame anyone for ignorance except for the ignorant.

They use the argument "They should have left" because really, they should have left. The dangerous potential was known, and they opened the convention center for people who couldn't leave. What more to do? Again, they cannot go house to house forcing the people who willfully chose to defy warnings, and get them out.

I never said that it was a surprise, but you are misinterpreting the Mission Accomplished banner. It said mission accomplished because they eliminated a tyrannical leader from power. Forgive them for celebrating that? They freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, and again I say FREED the people. The mission accomplished was mission Iraqi Freedom.

While I can see the "misleading" side slightly, it is only if you take it in that context and that viewpoint. Even the Iraqi people were ecstatic, and they celebrated the mission accomplished! Maybe Bush did it to satisfy the people who again COMPLAIN, do nothing but COMPLAIN about the war. Maybe he thought it would help to show what was really going on. It's easy to sit back and critique when you aren't right in the spotlight.
budazz
i dont know him....
Jayfarer
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, I can agree about the Michael Brown part. Although it's not the smartest choice, he is gone now and you still want retribution? What's done is done, and unfortunately we cannot rewrite the past.

If by retribution, you mean I want people to start treating it as a mistake the administration made. Far too many people are content to write it off, shrug, and continue to think the administrations track record is spotless.

Quote:
What late response? Tell me, how exactly would you respond to a natural disaster of this magnitude. So many people chose to ignore the warnings given to them, and then when we went in to rescue them by helicopter, there were just SO many of them that it took a lot of time.

How about Mike Brown not even knowing that people were stranded for 3 days in the Convention Center with no food and water, despite constant daily reports on Television & Radio from that location? How about how long it took the National Guard to get there after all the looting, violence and reported rape? It didn't take this long for help to arrive to survivors for the Tsunami in Asia.

Quote:

He only apologized and "accepted responsibility" because people wouldn't get off of his back and he has so many things to worry about that he didn't feel like battling them anymore, he thought it might satisfy those who do nothing but complain.

Oh, it's good to know you are inside of his brain. Because you clearly display an uncanny ability to know his exact reasons.

Are you actually going believe what you assume based on vague impressions, rather than the actual words that came out of his actual mouth? Maybe I'm really in favor of the Bush administration, and I don't really mean these words, they're just there to get someone off my back?

Quote:

You can't really blame anyone for a hurricane or it's aftermath. You can't blame anyone for ignorance except for the ignorant.

No one is. That's a huge misconception some people seem to have. Critics of the administration are not blaming them for the hurricane. They are blaming it for the poor choices in handling either preperation or reaction. I mean, Bush didn't even speak to the nation regarding the Hurricane until people started criticising for it. During the first few days of the Hurricane he was making generic talks and doing photo-ops in San Diego.

Quote:

They use the argument "They should have left" because really, they should have left. The dangerous potential was known, and they opened the convention center for people who couldn't leave. What more to do? Again, they cannot go house to house forcing the people who willfully chose to defy warnings, and get them out.

What more? What about supplying them with food so people wouldn't be compelled to loot grocery stores? What about having the Guard in there sooner to keep things in order? What about keeping things sanitary so that bodies weren't floating in the streets and disease wasn't spreading in the Astrodome?

Quote:

I never said that it was a surprise, but you are misinterpreting the Mission Accomplished banner. It said mission accomplished because they eliminated a tyrannical leader from power. Forgive them for celebrating that? They freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, and again I say FREED the people. The mission accomplished was mission Iraqi Freedom.

But we don't even have Iraqi Freedom. They're living in a dangeorus environment with suicide bombers killing civilians on a regular basis. Whether or not you think that's better than a fascism, it doesn't matter, the fact is that it's a bad thing, and our job is not done until they can take care of themselves.

I am not calling out the banner display because they were celebrating. Celebration is fine. Pulling down the Saddaam Staute? That was a celebration too, and that was okay. What was wrong with it was the plain out misleading and arrogance of that banner - it tries to tell people watching that we're done, that it's smooth sailing from here on out. Yet more soldiers have died since then, yet they don't consider it "major combat"? That's almost outrageous. Almost.

Quote:

While I can see the "misleading" side slightly, it is only if you take it in that context and that viewpoint. Even the Iraqi people were ecstatic, and they celebrated the mission accomplished! Maybe Bush did it to satisfy the people who again COMPLAIN, do nothing but COMPLAIN about the war. Maybe he thought it would help to show what was really going on. It's easy to sit back and critique when you aren't right in the spotlight.

What is it with complaining? Apparently now any challenging or questioning of authority is going to be labeled complaining? Would you like those of us who disagree, the other half of the country to simply nod our heads and blindly follow anything? Would you call

It's not complaining. It is standing up for what we believe in. It is standing against a great injustice that we (personally) see. Labelling it "complaining" is just a cheap way to write it off with a negative connotation and ignoring the argument. It's activism. I'm sure you wouldn't label other forms of activism as mere "complaining."

And for the record, though unrelated, I find it hard to believe that any politician would cave in on a national scale simply because people "complain". It takes far more than that, and as you can see, it doesn't do anything because here we are, still disagreeing with them.

Yeah, the Iraqis were ecstatic. Who wouldn't. It's a worthy cause of celebration, but it is not the end of "major combat." It was a milestone, but still only the beginning, as we can see today.

After all this, after the mistake of appointing Brown to FEMA, after Enron, after the scandals with Rove, Libby, DeLay, after the record deficit, after the lack of WMDs, after all of these well documented problems, you aren't even going to consider that maybe...MAYBE...they should be held responsible for these problems? Even if you still support them taking into conside
Related topics
A soldier's rant
Dems: these are merely the facts
Help with a quick PHP mod for PHPBB.
Song.
Justification for War in Iraq
Did Bob lie?
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Domestic Spying
America and guns,
-Scientology-Is it truly believable?
Iran's nuclear program
what is the day today?
Tony Blair
Conspiracy theory - 9/11
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.