Guess Old Devil Bush was RIGHT......

Derius-T
So what your saying is, that the entire world, including the democratic, and liberal left, were 'duped' by a 15 year old girl? As governmental leaders they weren't smart enough to question the story or check the facts THEN, 10 years ago, before going to WAR!? They AGREED to go to WAR based on the ramblings of a 15 year old girl!? No matter wether or not I agree with liberal ideals, I don't think they are stupid or nieve (sp?) enough to commit to WAR simply because of the questionable testimony of a little girl, without FACT CHECKING.
Click to expand...

"Duped"??? George Herbert Walker Bush's personal friend and former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Craig Fuller' PR firm Hill & Knowlton orchestrated this theatrical performance before Congress. Congress voted by a very narrow margin to fund the Gulf War and this was the item that hit the emotional button for most of those that wavered. George H W Bush repeated this lie, as did his Vice President Dan Quayle, several times in public speeches to drum up public support for the war, CNN and their fellow obliging media also reported this as truth - and never retracted it.

Of course, just try and find a story about "Nayirah" on CNN.com now ;)

The fact is, these people lie, and the media dutifully reports it perpetuating acceptence as "fact" in the minds of many. The "liberal" leadership are as much a part of this poisonous cherade as those in the "republican" party.

And besides THAT, if they BELIEVED 10 years ago that the Bush admin lied, and tricked them into going to war, and had PROOF that he LIED just to get their support, then why in the HELL would they be TWICE STUPID and follow the same admin, into the same war, in the same place 10 years later?
Click to expand...

Again, they were not "tricked". It was the leadership in both parties that moved this scam along. Aside from a handful of Congressmen in both parties who do their thinking and sometimes their speaking for themselves, the rest is a big show for public consumption. It has been the public that has been tricked; though certainly not all, and more people are beginning to see through this facade called the "democratic" and "republican" party show.

Are your highly praised leaders stupid or what?
Click to expand...

Um, they are not "[My] highly praised leaders". G H W Bush - and G W Bush - their party leadership, that of the "democratic party" - couldn't lead me to the bathroom.

It seems to me, that no matter WHAT POLITICAL side you are on, it doesn't really matter. There is more to it than you or I will ever know. But you
make everyone look bad, when you say Bush is ignorant, liar, ect. Yet he
was able to get a MAJORITY to back him. If he is truely THAT incompetent,
what does that say for the rest of the government including the liberal dems,
who followed him?
Click to expand...

First sentence, correct.

The rest implies that there is some kind of "fog" over the truth, and that when these people are exposed in blatant lies and criminal acts, it can be glossed over until the next one comes along and goes, and so on in perpetuity. The only way Bush had the "majority" back him was the faithful co-operation of the media - all of it.

You didn't see CNN blow Bush Sr's game when "Nayirah" was uncovered as a fraud now did you? Did any other major "liberal" network do so? Certainly not; they just rolled right along as if nothing had happened.

Its just odd that EVERYTHING that doesn't fit your little skewed view of things is just 'lies and spin' from the evil old Bush war machine, and you are the only one 'enlightened' enough to know the 'REAL TRUTH'. Scarey
Click to expand...

Skewed would be a good way to describe what has been peddled as "truth" for the last several decades in this country. This in addition to blatant lies by our national leaders, supported by a big propaganda machine in the form of national media. Be it CNN or FOX news - or any of the other syndicated news carriers.

You're right, it is scarey.
 
Lax: I never claimed that Bush was a holy man, or that he could do no wrong, or that he was incorrupt. The very NATURE of politics, at least in my mind will always conjure images of greed, and backstabbing, ect, ect. Since the time of rome and before, politics is a dangerous game. But what I DO believe about Bush, is that he has this countries best intrest in mind. I listened to his state of the union, as well as everything both he and Kerry have ever said in a broadcast or paper, and I tend to AGREE PERSONALLY wit h what Bush says. His ideas IMHO are what this country needs to do, and he has a no-nonsense, in your face approach that I like. I don't like a wishy washy president. I want one in your face, ready to make change happen, instead of letting it get kicked around for 4-8 years, and NOTHING EVER CHANGES. Like his proposed S.S. reform. Seems like a good idea. Seems like it is something that can benifit US. The government has had nearly the EXACT SAME OPTION he is proposing available to THEM for YEARS! Its okay for them, but its not okay for private citizens? They are smart enough to control their own money or future retirement, but WE are ignorant sheep and it must be regulated FOR US, for OUR OWN GOOD? I won't get any farther into it. But whatever his drawbacks, I believe Bush has ideas that would make this country and its PEOPLE strong again, and not mire them in further big goverment control.

And on a side note, at least he is tactful and respectful. The democratic side can't even stand? They openly boo on national tv? Its really sad. Even if I didn't agree with a guy, if I was an elected official, I would hold myself above that kind of petiness, at least when the WHOLE WORLD could see it. Its unproffessional in the least.....
 
Sorry guys.

I posted at 2 AM and everything I typed seemed to be pretty random.
I was just trying to make the point that it could be much worse than it is.
Also, if you want to look for someone in charge to question or blame, look to DoD and not to the President.
I disagreed with a lot of policies in Iraq, and most of the policy letters were not signed "George W. Bush".
Sssooooooo......
Please disregard my random, sleep-deprivation induced post. :D
 
Derius T:

But some things need to be done.
Click to expand...

On that point, I find I agree with you 100%. My objection is that the thing that MOST needed doing (killing Osama Bin laden) was sacrificed in the name of a war which had no urgent need to be fought when it was.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.

Even before the invasion, the wisdom of shifting resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq was raised privately by top military officials and publicly by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others. Now it's being hotly debated again following an election-year critique of the Bush administration by its former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.

"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."

The Bush administration says the hunt for bin Laden continued throughout the war in Iraq. Officials say it's wrong to speculate that he would have been captured, or other terrorist attacks prevented, if the Iraq war hadn't happened. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on ABC's This Week, called the example of the Special Forces switch "simplistic."

But the Pentagon tacitly acknowledged a problem last year, after the Iraq invasion. It created a new organization, Task Force 121, to better oversee commando operations in the region and ensure a faster response when terrorists can be struck.

Now gaps in capability are being closed as the administration puts record amounts of money into military and spy agencies. More spy aircraft such as the Predator drone are arriving. More troops are getting Arabic training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. CIA Director George Tenet said this month that the agency is filling shortfalls, especially among translators.

Still, the question lingers: Did opening a second front hurt the main effort to defeat terrorism?

Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but "a distraction." The war in Iraq, Andrews notes, entailed the largest deployment of special operations forces — about 10,000 —since the Vietnam War. That's about 25% of all U.S. commandos.

It also siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers. Iraq proved such a drain, one former Pentagon official notes, that there were no AWACS radar jets to track drug-trafficking aircraft in South America.

Saddam was not an immediate threat. "This has been a real diversion from the longer struggle against jihadists," especially in the intelligence field, he says.

Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets.
 
bountyH:

Sure it diverted resources, but it needed to be done. To make a parallel to the current SS issue, Bush says by 2042 (i think) that SS will be down 70% and effectively bankrupt. Democrats argue that it will be down only 40-50%. Is that really that much difference? Do we wait for it to get SO BAD that DRASTIC measures MUST be taken, or do we fix it NOW, while we have the chance, to safeguard the future? Same with Sadam, in my book. The opportunity was there, right next door so to speak, troops already in the field, so Bush took the initiative and got him now. Would it have been wiser to wait a decade or two, when he was much more powerful, or when he HAD gotten nukes, or HAD killed one of YOUR kids? An ounce of prevention, you know?

Its not so unknown a practice really. For centuries leaders killed their enemies while they were weak. Or killed the sons of vanquished enemies so that they could not grow up and cause problems later. All of the great writers of WAR over the centuries tell you it is wise to strike while your enemy is most vulnerable. Thats the way I see what Bush did, and I really don't have a problem with it. And hey, it happened to lead to a great thing for the iraqi people, which is a plus.....how can you argue with that?
 
Derius_T
But what I DO believe about Bush, is that he has this countries best intrest in mind.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I do not believe that anyone in the oligarchy running this country has anything but their own socialist global agenda in mind. George W Bush has, as his father did, expressed this from time to time both in words, actions and inactions. You can not have it both ways; if G W Bush had this country's best interests fearlessly at heart there were things to reverse all this that he could have accomplished in his first month with the stroke of a pen, and with his mere spoken words in the form of directives, and with appeals to Congress and the People at large.

The fact is, as another poster so aptly put it on another thread topic, he is like his cronies in both parties. A fraud.

As for social security, the only right thing to do is to abolish it completely. It always has and always will be simply a socialist form of theft. Stealing. Let people keep their money and worry about their own retirements, and leave my money alone.
 
But what I DO believe about Bush, is that he has this countries best intrest in mind.
Click to expand...

Open borders, more taxation, gun control, outsourcing American jobs, running up our credit card more even though we're already 8 trillion in debt, campaign finance reform, arming our enemies, free trade. Yep.... :rolleyes:
 
1) So you're trying to claim that Bush is not a tax and spend socialist? Have you seen the budget proposals? Also, didn't Bush just propose a 120% security tax increase on plane tickets?

2) If you translate saying you'll sign the new AWB to "blocking gun control measures", then I guess you're right. Isn't it the Bush admin that is making pilots jump through hoops to be armed again, even as it was legal for pilots to be armed up to a few months before 9/11?

3) So Bush doesn't support NAFTA, keeping our trade deficit with China, illegal immigration and "privatization"?
 
Tax and spend ? No; spend only. I agree going deeper into debt is a bad thing, but arguably it would cost more to not respond to terrorist attacks.

The AWB renewal was lip service; it is outweighed about 1000 to one by the list of actions he did for RKBA that I referenced. Did you read it ?

He doesn’t support illegal immigration. If he gives the immigrants some kind of worker visas, then they’re not illegal, are they ?

NAFTA was supported by Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I still remember the full page ad showing five Presidents in a line supporting it. I don’t think it’s fair to say that because Bush supports NAFTA that he supports outsourcing.
 
Psych, the 120% hike was a whole 6 bucks I believe. Maybe that way they can pay the TSA more than minimum wage so they don't have to take out their frustration on us.

As a technical note, the GAO now shows that SS will run out of money in 2052, not 42, and the legislature is required to use their numbers. I figure if they just stop robbing the SS fund and (god forbid) pay back into it a portion of what they've skimmed for years, it would probably last till 2152.

This whole 'save our future', but ignore the debt burden that's going to get shoved on the working class is just another political shell game imo.
 
The whole SS thing should be stopped cold turkey with workers coming on line in 2010. From that point foreward all new folks entering the workforce should be able to do wat they want with their earnings re individual retirement accounts. The government has no business funding ANYONES retirement except the employees of the government, whose population should shrink drastically with the elimination of some cabinet positions and many of the alphabet agencies. All workers currently in the pipeline prior to 2010 as well as retirees would recieve their full benefits per current law. The overnment would make up for any shortfall in funding by paying the monies back (with 7% interest) into the trustfund that were 'borrowed' over the years, not by taxing the public to make up the difference.
 
I don't worry too much about social security GB. I figure that any government, once its riffraff have figured out how to vote themself raises, won't last long. Now the problem is just to figure out whether I need to learn Arabic or Mandarin Chinese. Considering the political drift these last 3 decades probably Mandarin is the safest bet.
 
MeekandMild, at least you will be able to order better food at Chinese restaurants. There is often a menu in Chinese for those from the old country.
 
:D Do you think they will allow us to go to restaurants? I was hoping to work up to getting a better bunk in the slave quarters.
 
Silver Bullet
Tax and spend ? No; spend only. I agree going deeper into debt is a bad thing, but arguably it would cost more to not respond to terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

Can you say Department of Education? Why is it still there? I just heard on the radio yesterday about his proposed "heavy cuts"; why is he tapdancing around getting rid of the socialist empire at Federal level under his control? The huge bureaucracies he has created to "fight" the war-on-a-noun are simply an extension of this. We are as vulnerable - if not more so - to "terrorist" attacks based on high school level physics, chemistry and general knowledge as in September 2001. While the Bush administration and media have the public at large rocking left and right like tourists on a bus about "anthrax", "bioweapons", "dirty nukes", "suitcase nukes". Dashing over this side of the bus to look out the window, then over to the other.

The threat to this country are the unknowns who wander freely in and out with dope, arms and people - with many remaining here for extended periods working from the inside - and those we have working in our own government agencies etc who aid them and take part in their criminal enterprizes. All with defacto government sanction. Inaction and omission. Four years gone by.

The AWB renewal was lip service; it is outweighed about 1000 to one by the list of actions he did for RKBA that I referenced. Did you read it ?
Click to expand...

Lip service. The President of the United States, the highest ranking person in the Executive Branch, has it within his power at the stroke of a pen to direct - order - the Justice Department, and all Federal agencies to cease the arrest of persons and prosecutions of unconstitutional gun laws. What's your fraudulent man in the suit waiting for? "Re-election"? Again? Let me guess - "he's just too busy". What; to make one terse phone call? To call the AG and tell them; do this .... today? When are conservatives going to stop making excuses for a man who has been throwing them peanuts here and there for four whole years?

He doesn’t support illegal immigration. If he gives the immigrants some kind of worker visas, then they’re not illegal, are they ?
Click to expand...

That's clever. So you are going to hand out visas like confetti to people whose true identity, country of origin, allegience, criminal background and intention can not be accurately verified?

Why not throw in a class III for each of them? Afterall; give them the right paper and it'll be "legal" right?

NAFTA was supported by Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I still remember the full page ad showing five Presidents in a line supporting it. I don’t think it’s fair to say that because Bush supports NAFTA that he supports outsourcing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was Ronald Reagan that at one time referred to George H W Bush as "a globalist". Reagan also got us out of UNESCO, and had he not been given alittle disciplinary action may have gone even further. Already in his "golden years" when he was elected, after he was shot he made a very slow recovery, and it is evident that much of the WH affairs were handled by people like VP Bush.

As for NAFTA, personally, I think there was a very small but significantly naive side to Reagan, and by the time he realized where much of this was going, it was too late. Ford, Carter, Bush and Clinton were all globalists from the start.

Outsourcing under G W Bush has become so deeply etched into acceptance by the change agents that even conservatives defend it now. Amazing.
 
War always has costs. Is the freedom YOU ENJOY RIGHT THIS SECOND, worth the blood spilled to get it? If it weren't for the men and women that gave their lives for YOU, YOU wouldn't have freedom either. So I ask you again, is YOUR freedom worth the blood shed to preserve it? Would you shed YOUR blood to defend that freedom, or the freedom of YOUR children?
Click to expand...

I couldnt have put the above statement better myself.

Couple of things i would like to say the first being that i dont agree with every aspect of the war. And didnt believe in every aspect even before the elections and i still voted for Bush. We had too much invested to just walk away and let the people of Iraq fend for themselves. Secondly anyone out there that can tell me where the WMD are right at this moment that we all know damn well Saddam had? Point being is they are somewhere wether you want to buy into the belief that a man of Saddam's mind set would willingly destroy them which i dont believe for a second. Those weapons are somewhere very likely still in Iraq buried in the desert like the few aircraft that were unearthed that were buried in such haste they didnt even take the time to preserve them or protect them from the elements in anyway, you dont just bury 35 million dollar or better aircraft in the sand.Aircraft they hadnt declared to the UN either so he hid those where did he hide the other stuff? Time will tell most certainly but rest assured they didnt likely leave iraq because i know damn well they were undoubtly watching all the major highways in and out of Iraq via satelite and had those weapons moved along those roads they would have seen them. And my last point is this I must commend the Iraqi people who went out and voted because if the numbers i have heard are true a greater percentage of them voted than the american people would in there own election. Most like to complain but as usual most are to damn lazy to vote.
 
It was lip service. He fulfilled his campaign promise. Talk. For actions, see the list of Mr. Roberts that I referenced earlier. Some of us consider actions more important than words. If you’re whining that Bush isn’t 100% RKBA as defined by NRA and GOA and the Founding Fathers, you’re right but that’s not my point. My point is that Bush has been more proactively pro-RKBA than any other president in the last 80 years, by his deeds. If you’re saying that any president who doesn’t do every single thing the NRA or GOA or you wants done right now, today, is an anti, then I don’t think I can help you. Would you prefer Kerry ?

My point about the illegal aliens wasn’t whether Bush’s policy is correct or incorrect. My complaint was with the phrasing Mr. Sword used. To say that Bush supports “illegal immigration” implies more than he “supports insufficiently restricted border crossing for migrant workers”, it also implies that he condones it being done illegally; that is, there are laws against it but the government is going to look the other way. I don’t think that is true, and when someone tacks on a few bogus claims to what is otherwise an honest opinion, it taints the whole opinion. Comprehende, amigo ?

I’m not a fan of outsourcing either. I just think it’s a stretch to say that Bush is responsible for American corporation executives decisions or for any laws passed before his administration.
 
G W Bush's 2nd Amendment peanuts thrown to us are just that - peanuts.

It is ridiculous to suggest that anything short of what is Constitutional should be expected - whether it come from the NRA, GOA or other source. It is either right or wrong. The idea that we can accept these minute fractional fixes is like taking your car to a dealership under warranty for repair with a blown engine and transmission, and each time you get it back the mechanic has merely replaced something like a single plug wire.

It's absurd; Bush is either loyal to the Constitution and People of this country, or he is a fraud. I contend the latter.

Likewise concerning illegal aliens and the influx and current residence of potential terrorists. He is either loyal to our nation or he is a fraud. I contend the latter. He supports it by omission and inaction. You can not have it both ways on these things, they are not subjective issues.

G W Bush, as the highest ranking person in the Executive has the autonomous power to do certain things when it comes to trade agreements, tariffs and other relations with any foreign power. Additionally he can open his mouth and speak. He has been in office for four years already, hasn't done a thing to stop the outsourcing of jobs in this country, and there are still the goods pouring in from the usual suppliers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top