Well, honestly, I hold my interests above freedom and democracy. :P
And none of that history involves Bush's presidency.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
no by pushing
i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fire
i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fire
Holly this is one topic we totaly agree on. When 9-11 happened, it was a terrible thing. But it didn't 'break' America. The problem is, that Bush went after Bin Laden. After he figured out that the US FBI and CIA were so useless, he needed someone else to beat up. And that just happened to be Saddam. As Holly says, he was no threat to the US. He was someone to use the 'Shock and Awe' tactic on. IE said that he admits there were no weapons of MD, but quickly adds that 'but he needed to be removed anyway' (not a literal quote...but the same). Oh, so after Bush and his people purposly LIED to the US (the people who were so hurt by the attacks) and ready for any blood (again the over use of the 'patriotic fever' thing that he played on and is still playing on) and after the UN said there was nothing there he decides to bomb the hell out of them anyway. Heck. We could kick their ass anytime. Lets show the world just how powerful the US is. We don't care about International Relations, or what is happening in Israel (a very long term friend of the US) or even in this homeland of ours. Let's not forget about his dealings with ENRON. He got off scott free, and he is just as guilty as the rest of the crooks that are getting busted. Again more lies and decieving the people of the US and the World. The sooner he is gone, the better. The sooner he is gone, the sooner the US can begin the process of taking the troops out of Iraq, and letting them be a country. The sooner he is gone the repair work can begin on relations strained with friendly countries that have been so for eons. He has ruined almost everything that the US stands for in 4 short years. The US can't afford 4 more.
i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fire
So that makes it all alright? Isn't that something that the UN should decide? Not 'big brother'.
Answer mine first! :-))
why is Kerry and Edwards absolved from the 'war debacle' when they voted and based their judgement on the same faulty intelligence that bush did??????????????
why is Kerry and Edwards absolved from the 'war debacle' when they voted and based their judgement on the same faulty intelligence that bush did??????????????
Ok. I'll try to by my own opinion. By saying that, I'm not brining anyone down, or singling them out. This is how I feel, right or wrong. Paul, I feel that they did it because of the way it was presented to them. Like most of the people did in congress that voted for it. They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway. That is not an exscuse to get them off the hook. I feel the President and his sources for the war, are more responsible then those who voted for it. If something is presented to you in a way that seems logical, but behind the scenes it's nothing but a guise, then I think you are manipulated into doing something you wouldn't have done if the entire truth were told. I tried my best, and I like conversation with you Eagle, so lets keep it cool :)
They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway-----
yes but neither was Bush---
yes but neither was Bush---
i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fire
So that makes it all alright? Isn't that something that the UN should decide? Not 'big brother'.
Good Idea - Let the United "Oil for Food" Nations decide.
Bully, as I said, America behaves like one would expect a lone superpower with a massive military budget to behave. So naturally you wouldn't want to let the UN decide because that would be taking a chance that the decision would not be 100% in your favor. Why take that chance of letting the UN decide when you can just force your way through instead? Use your military and economic power to get what you want and call it a war for "democracy" or "freedom" or some other BS even though, as has been mentioned before to the point of tedium, America is not remotely concerned with democracy in the Middle East and never has been. Just ask those great "democratic" allies, the Saudis. Or, if Saddam survives until his trial without suffering a mysterious heart attack or stroke or commits "suicide," maybe he will be able to enlighten us about American support for his "democratic" regime in Iraq for all those years when he was murdering his own people...
They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway-----
yes but neither was Bush---
That's right. The truth at that point was incorrect and mislead. Then Bush went to war. Now, all of a sudden, half of America comes to the belief that war wasn't such a good idea. What is an incumbent President to do? He has to justify his actions, for, if he admits and acknowledges his faults, he would lose support of both halves. But if he tries to justify his actions, he will have the support of half the country, which is good enough for the election.
Do you honestly think that if Bush admitted his wrongs, his attackers would be "Well, that's what we wanted you to say. It's cool now." No, he would receive millions of "I told you so's" a day. That is why it is so ridiculous for people to ask this of him.
Hollie -
Can you provide a leftist perspective of why the UN is so corrupt and inept? ... or would you rather ignore the oil for food fiasco?
Can you provide a leftist perspective of why the UN is so corrupt and inept? ... or would you rather ignore the oil for food fiasco?
"Do you honestly think that if Bush admitted his wrongs, his attackers would be "Well, that's what we wanted you to say. It's cool now." No, he would receive millions of "I told you so's" a day. That is why it is so ridiculous for people to ask this of him."
No. If he admited (which he is not man enough to do) that he KNEW that Iraq had no WOMD (which was his basis for attacking and the 'link' between the 9-11 attacks with Saddam and Bin Laden which is total BS) and just said "I want to remove Saddam from power. He's a bad guy that kills his people."
Do you think that congress would have given him the green light to attack? Of course not. So in light of all the things that are, and have come out about the fabrication of the 'facts' you can plainly see that he was and is still using the patriotism flag to whip Americans into a fever for the 'War On Terror'. It really is sad that people haven't seen this, and that he'll get votes in November.
No. If he admited (which he is not man enough to do) that he KNEW that Iraq had no WOMD (which was his basis for attacking and the 'link' between the 9-11 attacks with Saddam and Bin Laden which is total BS) and just said "I want to remove Saddam from power. He's a bad guy that kills his people."
Do you think that congress would have given him the green light to attack? Of course not. So in light of all the things that are, and have come out about the fabrication of the 'facts' you can plainly see that he was and is still using the patriotism flag to whip Americans into a fever for the 'War On Terror'. It really is sad that people haven't seen this, and that he'll get votes in November.
War aside Iron Eagle,sir, can you honestly tell me that Bush represents the average Amercian in this country when he is supporting a bill in congress to prevent ppl from suing billion dollar pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by their medications.
Mr. Cheney still has money in Halliburton one of the bigger firms who won the contract in rebuilding Iraq....hmmmm. Bush and Cheney representing the average American ppl, sorry I have to disagree.
As for Mr. Clinton and the Monica-gate, so what? Many presidents have had affairs that were never leaked to the public. AS far as the first attack on the WTC, I lived in NYC during both attacks and I can tell you there were two fundamental differences between the two.
First off the first attack was perpetrated by a group of Muslims living here for quite sometime in America led by a radical Muslim cleric.
Secondly the 9/11 attacks were planned for many years overseas by not only the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden (who was given weapons by our government to fight the Russians in 1981 during Reagan's presidency BTW) but by other nations and not one of them mention Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Cheney still has money in Halliburton one of the bigger firms who won the contract in rebuilding Iraq....hmmmm. Bush and Cheney representing the average American ppl, sorry I have to disagree.
As for Mr. Clinton and the Monica-gate, so what? Many presidents have had affairs that were never leaked to the public. AS far as the first attack on the WTC, I lived in NYC during both attacks and I can tell you there were two fundamental differences between the two.
First off the first attack was perpetrated by a group of Muslims living here for quite sometime in America led by a radical Muslim cleric.
Secondly the 9/11 attacks were planned for many years overseas by not only the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden (who was given weapons by our government to fight the Russians in 1981 during Reagan's presidency BTW) but by other nations and not one of them mention Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
No. If he admited (which he is not man enough to do) that he KNEW that Iraq had no WOMD (which was his basis for attacking and the 'link' between the 9-11 attacks with Saddam and Bin Laden which is total BS) and just said "I want to remove Saddam from power. He's a bad guy that kills his people."
Do you think that congress would have given him the green light to attack? Of course not. So in light of all the things that are, and have come out about the fabrication of the 'facts' you can plainly see that he was and is still using the patriotism flag to whip Americans into a fever for the 'War On Terror'. It really is sad that people haven't seen this, and that he'll get votes in November.
No, Bush was fed information based on CIA and British intelligence that Iraq indeed possessed WMDs and was dangerous. He likely didn't just make up information just so he could attack Iraq. However, afterwards, yes, all his reasoning and all his logic were thrown to the wind. But what I mean is, at the time, his actions were understandable.
That seems to be the general attitude.