Finally disgusted with Bush

From your link:

...a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.
Click to expand...

...the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
Click to expand...

Are these the reasons you are completley disliking of him? :rolleyes:

Please explain to me what should be done now to rectify the situation in Iraq or, as an alternative, please tell me who you would rather have in the White House prosecuting this war.

P.S. By your grammar, now completely convinced I am that Yoda you had for a teacher, Mmmm... ;)
 
TheBluesMan,
Im not against the war. I was not really for going there but I do believe we have a mission there that we need to finish.

Bush has continued to fail his people. Hes the commander in chief. Many will agree this war is a big mess. Not only because of it being a war but entering without a well defined plan. Don't deny it but some of you that support him only do so because of relegious beliefs not for anything else.

The reason for the war wasnt because of WMD's it wasnt for oil either. Im not that type of believer. Although I still believe Saddam wasn't as guilty as he appeared and his sons played a bigger part then he did (this was also brought up on fox. At the end they said we will probably never know).

Im not supporting Saddam. But for anyone to believe Bush has served his people accordingly is pretty damn ignorant in my eyes.

I dont HATE bush cause of his personality. Hes a funny guy etc.. but he shouldnt be running this country.

(puts on flame shield)
 
I see...

So, what should be done now to rectify the situation in Iraq or, as an alternative, please tell me who you would rather have in the White House prosecuting this war?
 
You would end up repeating yourself when constantly battling the same BS accusations, over and over, from people who supported your decision (even across party lines) at the time the decision were made. See TheBluesMan's quotes.

Thank God the media is on Bush's side or it'd be much, much worse. :rolleyes:
 
please tell me who you would rather have in the White House prosecuting this war?
Click to expand...

Pat Buchanan.

At this point I really do not think we are driving the insurgents out of Iraq nearly as fast as our presence there is creating them. We eliminated the dictator and have a government in place. It's time to hand over control to them and let the Iraqi people decide how they want to procede. Declare victory and go.

If they turn into an Islamic state and become a threat to the US we can always smack them down. The programs that had been developed by the old regieme are gone and their neighbors are a stones throw away from having them anyway. As soon as we declare our intention to leave Iraq and get out of dodge I say we blow the snot out of whatever locations we fear Iran has WMDs in development at. No need to occupy. Blow the snot out of it, bring in the airmobile troops to clean it out, slat the earth and leave.

Sorry but Bush has dropped the ball in Afghanistan, ignored the Mexican problem, done nothing about the Chinese, and is not taken seriously by North Korea or Iran. He may have good intentions but I believe he has been tested under pressure and found wanting.

I may not want Kerry or Gore but that doesn't mean we can't do better than Bush. Unfortunately his performance, unless he does something quick, is going to change the balance of power in government in the next 2-4 years.
 
BluesMan - in my other post, I made it clear that Bush has been take down the garden path by strategies proposed by Cheney and Rumsfield that led to inadequate war fighting.

Generals and experts that proposed a much more muscular approach were fired or discarded.

If Bush is to be successful, he needs to stand on his own two feet, ditch the Roves, Rummys and Cheneys. He needs to get folks who can fight and know how to do it. Lincoln faced that dilemma with McClelland.

Let real experts tell him what needs to be done (who are not wedded to failed policies to protect their own ego) and do it. Seal the borders, take down the Syrian supply routes. If we need a draft, etc. go for it.

Otherwise, we will face an endless occupation and continuing deaths. We will see a nuclear Iran and North Korea.
 
hmmm how bout firing Bush and putting somebody else in power..

I would say give the job to Colin Powell...hes smart enough, tough enough and can probably find a good balance between diplomacy and tank shells to sort the whole mess out...
 
War is messy and unplanned things happen. Gee, the enemy doesn't cooperate. POTUS acts as a cheerleader, but unfortunately we have a guy that is a poor communicator. I do believe that Bush is pulling the party down, but hey, the Republicans started out spineless. Hate him for his policies: immigration, fighting a regional war in one country, unlimited spending; but give him a break with regards to his speechifying...

I recently listened to someone suggesting that a Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton presidency was the direct result of a coordinated power sharing agreement. Part of this agreement required that Bill and GWB mess-up during their second terms. Hard to disprove based upon performance. GWB's second term is only a year out and he has already set the stage for the re-emergence of the donkey party.
 
I woke up early out of all days today and caught his speech. Same old crap. Repeating we can't give up a million times. If I want to hear something get repeated ill buy a parrot.
Click to expand...
Would you have said the same thing about FDR during WWII?
 
sorry wheres the comparison?

a messy counter insurgency war in the desert over oil vs a conflict that lasted several years and spanned all continents and left upwards of 100 million dead?

Wheres the comparison?

As bad as the 2000 dead in Iraq is, I believe there were numerous single battles and actions in WW2 where in excess of 2000 US troops were KIA.

Not to mention there was no war, no planning, the invasion was a joke. The real mess all started after a certain somebody without a plan was seen dancing around the deck of an aircraft carrier and saying the war was over.

100 years from now, Im willing to be that Bush will be forgotten, but FDR will still be remembered for true statesman he was.
 
Wheres the comparison?
Click to expand...
Explain why we fought the Germans then, when it was the Japanese who attacked us. We had no beef with Hitler, we had no real reason for saving Briton or liberating France. Explain why one US soldier had to die to save France.
 
lol..

well actually...Germany declared war on the US. The US up to that point looked like it might even sit the war out. Although it was supplying liberty ships and supplies to England, it also had an active embassy in Berlin.

Yes and by the popularity of the Silver Bund league, perhaps your allegation that "you had no beef with Hitler" has some weight to it.

Saving Britain? Well Operation Sea Lion was pretty much abandoned way prior to teh US entering the war. So although it was an island surrounded I fail to see how you "saved them".

You liberated France? Interesting, being as a good chunk of France was Vichy...so liberation was perhaps the wrong world..whatever spin DeGualle might have tried to put on it.

You know you should check your history books...as World War 2 wasnt just an American conflict...

Furthermore for people who are so hung up on the constitution and all its odds an ends..why so much bitterness towards the French? Is it not fact the Benjamin Franklin amoungst others helped draft your papers and country in almost mirror image of the French replublic? Didnt France aid the US in the war of independence against the British?

What you say about US troops dying for french soil makes no sense....

There seems to be an attitude here off and on that the French are spineless cowards...

I suppose revisionist historians are popular in this day an age..

France has had more counter insurgency wars in the 20th century than the US has...so perhaps when they choose to sit one out...it might be from learned bitter experience?
 
a messy counter insurgency war in the desert over oil vs a conflict that lasted several years
Click to expand...

Do you have proof? Maybe the low gasoline prices are the result of our brilliant capture of the Iraqi oil fields. Perhaps GWB has a secret Swiss account where he is packing away the loot..much like "oil for food".

I thought that the Japanese were into expansionism in the 1930's because they needed natural resources, especially oil, to fuel their economy.
 
Last edited:
yeah was not commenting on Japaneese politics as it was pretty apparent what their pacific rim ambitions were, long before Pearl Harbour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top