George W. Bush

[chopiabin]

I think he is a liar who tries to benefit the wealthy. he doesn't care about those who are less fortunate than him, and he is trying to deny or to take away rights from minorities (abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action). He also fails to see the line between church and state. I can not stand this "president," and would like to hear soem opinions.

Yours Truly,
Chop

[DAwud7]

Piece of sh*t. Igonorant, coke head,daddy boy,

[liszmaninopin]

I intensely dislike the "president."  If you can call him that, as he was shoved into office in a rather questionable fluster of voting miscounts in the state where his brother was governor.  Then the supreme court handed him the presidency.  This "president" lied to the public about Iraq, trying to justify the war by claiming weapons of mass destruction, and trying to hint to Americans that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11, which is untrue.  Most Americans still believe there was a connection, even though their own government admits that there was none.  Only now that our "intelligence" has proven a failure, they are crying about how great a humanitarian war that it was, when in reality just about everything in Iraq is worse now than before.  This president passed the Patriot Act, a gross infringement on our constitutional liberties.  He gutted the environmental protections that generations had worked to build to ensure a clean and healthy environment, all so corporate sponsors could make profits more easily.  This president almost seems dangerous for the future of the United States.

[chopiabin]

I definitely believe he is dangerous, and if he wins again, we are screwed.

Btw, have you seen Bowling for Columbine yet?

[ninja600rs]

Do you all actually think that Al Gore would have done better job as president over the last four years?  If so I would love to see some logical reasoning behind that.  Please try to do so without excessive insults, which seems to be the choice method so far. - Jon

[Hmoll]

Do you all actually think that Al Gore would have done better job as president over the last four years?  If so I would love to see some logical reasoning behind that.  Please try to do so without excessive insults, which seems to be the choice method so far. - Jon

I'm not a huge fan of Al "I invented the Internet" Gore, but he would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Some things Al Gore might not have done were he the president:

-  Lie to the American people about WMDs in order to involve the US in a war in Iraq.

- Have as vice-president  an ex-CEO,  who still receives deferred compensation and stock options, of a company that benefits financially from all aspects of the Iraq war.

- Take the US from a surplus to record deficit through irresponsible tax cuts aimed at the wealthy to such an extent that the World Bank and the IMF consider the USA's ability to repay their debt on a par with Argentina's.

- Tell Americans - via the FDA - that it is unpatriotic to purchase prescription drugs at a lower price in Canada, while sitting by and watching US companies send millions of manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas, and allowing American companies like Tyco to incorporate offshore to avoid paying US taxes.

- Shelve a proposal to ban the gasoline additive MBTE, which contaminates drinking water, as a payback to the industry that donated more than $1 mil. To republicans.

- Vote against the Kyoto Treaty.

- Ignore one of the biggest social problems in the US - namely, one in seven Americans are without health insurance.

- Squander the goodwill of the international community towards the US post 9/11 by alienating some of our closest allies.

There's many more, but that's a start.

KERRY IN '04

[Beet9]

Yes, Bush is definately a horrible president.  But on the other hand, has there really been a good president since Abe Lincoln??  
Gore would have done a worse job, considering his over-inflated ego.  And he just scares me.
Americans are enslaved by the views of their presidents.  Why even have presidents??  Can't people just be moral and not have to worry about laws??
But whatever.

[liszmaninopin]

If you really want to get down to the meat of the matter, the US has had alot of presidents with problems.  Some have been weak leaders, others held violent or extremist views, all were power hungry.

[chopiabin]

You don't think that Bush has an inflated ego?

Not that I particularly like Gore, but I do not think that we would be hated around the world if he had been elected. He also wouldn't destroy the environment and try to justify it.

Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people, but he somehow always seems to escape his scandals realtively quickly.

[dinosaurtales]

I think he's doing a great job, considering the decisions he's had to make.  Glad they weren't my decisions to make!

[liszmaninopin]

You have a point, there, Chop, about Bush getting away with stuff.  Clinton lied once to the public, and was jumped upon with incredible ferocity by the whole right wing of the country-it's all you heard about.  Bush's lies and coverups get practically no attention.  So much for a "liberal" media.  I think that our media is largely conservatively biased.

[chopiabin]

And think about the topic. Clinton's scandal was over a sexual issue that had no effect on this country, whereas Bush's are lies that change the lives of millions.

[DAwud7]

Yes, Bush is definately a horrible president.  But on the other hand, has there really been a good president since Abe Lincoln??  
Gore would have done a worse job, considering his over-inflated ego.  And he just scares me.
Americans are enslaved by the views of their presidents.  Why even have presidents??  Can't people just be moral and not have to worry about laws??
But whatever.

Im insulted by the fact that u consider lickon too have been a good president, he was another pieces of sh*t. And dont give me the free slaves bull either.

[Hmoll]

 Why even have presidents??  Can't people just be moral and not have to worry about laws??
But whatever.

Gee, that sounds realistic.

[Beet9]

Im insulted by the fact that u consider lickon too have been a good president, he was another pieces of sh*t. And dont give me the free slaves bull either.

You dumb cynic,  Abe Lincoln was one of the few people in America that WAS anti-slavery.  Hello - he was a CONSCIENCE whig!!  He was a very moral man and never owned slaves in his life!  In fact, he thought politics was so immoral that he quit it for most of his life until he was forced to try and stop slavery when it was expanded into the free states of the recently annexed texas and oregon territories.  And he was assasinated for what he believed in.  ABE LINCOLN IS MY HERO!!!  

[chopiabin]

Actually, although he thought it was morally reprehensible, Lincoln actually opposed it because his party represented the laborers and slavery took away jobs from whites.

[Hmoll]

Actually, although he thought it was morally reprehensible, Lincoln actually opposed it because his party represented the laborers and slavery took away jobs from whites.

Well that's revisionist history if I ever heard it.

There will always be jobs some sections of the population will not want to do. That is why Black, Chinese, Irish, and other immigrants built the railroads in the US.

Lincoln was a republican. The financial powers behind the Republican Party in 1860 were the Northern railroad barons, Northern manufacturers who wanted protectionist tariffs to protect them from competition, and Northern bankers and investors like Jay Cooke who wanted to use their political connections to make a killing financing a transcontinental railroad (among other schemes, such as central banking).

Lincoln was a lawyer before becoming a politician. Some of his clients were the large railroad companies.

Pray tell, what were the blacks going to do when they were free?  They certainly were not going to disappear as competition with whites for jobs.

[chopiabin]

Lincoln wanted containment of slavery. He did not want it to spread any further than it was because it would take away jobs from the people who lived in those lands. He was a Free Soil Republican - the party's ticket was containing slavery in the South and letting it slowly die out.

[Josh B.]

And think about the topic. Clinton's scandal was over a sexual issue that had no effect on this country, whereas Bush's are lies that change the lives of millions.

There's a good bumper sticker about this:

"What's worse: Screwing and Intern or Screwing the Country?"



I think GWBush should no longer be President.

From the NYTimes - this is a funny bit about the concept of Vice-Presidential Ascention:

"After Adams and Thomas Jefferson, during the republic's first two centuries, the only person to win a Presidential election WHILE serving as Vice-President was Martin Van Buren, in 1836.  (It didn't happen again until 1988, when George H. W. Bush won the election.  And it happened again a third time in 2000, when George W. Bush didn't)."

[dinosaurtales]

So I hear this all the time from musicians, who apparently hate GW or Republicans, but never explain what they would have done or would do instead on any issue.  What has he lied about and how did you find out he lied, that is, other than by just hearing from other people who just hate GW and Republicans?

[ninja600rs]

I think I agree with DinosaurTales here.  Hmoll in your response to me above all it really looks like you did was cut and paste bullets from a Mike Moore book.  Each of those points you touched upon were a decision that was made by the president.  Your viewpoint is telling you that the president was purposefully making a decision to create harm, but the way I see it I ask the question why?  Who needs money more Mike Moore writing about presidential conspiracy theories or President Bush?  I just dont buy into the fact that the president is purposefully choosing harm over benefits for him etc...  And Chopiabin saying that Clintons sex scandal had no effect on the USA is a very ignorant statement.  The presidnet is looked at as the ultimate role model.  To say that the way that the president is percieved by the citizens has no effect on the country does not make sense. - Jon  

[Daevren]

If the Nuremburg laws were applied,
every post-war American President would have to be hanged.

Everyone should see Manufacturing Consent instead of Michael Moore's populistic and shallow BFC.

[dinosaurtales]

What's Manufacturing Consent?  A book?  by whom?  What's it about?

[Daevren]

Its a doco made about Noam Chomsky, probably the most important intellectual alive.

It covers similair topics as Michael Moore does in his movie.

[Hmoll]

 Hmoll in your response to me above all it really looks like you did was cut and paste bullets from a Mike Moore book.    

It's kind of hard to cut-and-paste from a book one's never read.

[xenon]

From a cynnical point of view, George Bush did great things for Canada:

1) Alienated us from his close "grouppies" - thus not making us a large target for terrorists.

2) Screwed up the American economy so bad that Canada is benefiting from it.  The CAD is rising so high, and buying things off of eBay is easier.

3) Made Canada a safe haven, well recognized around the world. (Yes, a vague comment, don't feel like elaborating ATM, gotta practice piano soon)

He is also entertaining to listen to.

[dinosaurtales]

What makes you think GW screwed up the economy?  It's humming along amazngly well, considering the *drunken bash* stocks were on with the dot com boom. Considering that bust, and 9/11 it's amazing the economy is as good as it is.  Also consideriong the economy turned downward BEFORE he became president I'd say he's amazing at getting things messed up in only a few short weeks!  No other president can claim that!

[xenon]

Because Canada was the only G8 country w/o a deficit.

That, and the USD is sinking because of various economical issues.  And because the CAD is $0.13 higher than before, compared to the USD.

[dinosaurtales]

and GW personally did what to screw it up?  It usually takes 6 - 8 years for a high-level policy change (i.e. tax cuts, etc) to show up in the economy in a long term way.  It would be really unusual for a president to screw up an economy after only being in office a couple of weeks.  

I am not saying it couldn't happen. But I'd like more specifics other than *it's his fault*

[rachlisztchopin]

who here thinks bush is a great president!?!?!?
i suuuure do
i mean look hes going to turn us into a tyrannical country...thats what iv aaallways wanted..to be ruled by a tyrant: I CANT WAIT!  boy is he going to screw up the constitution...I thought about becoming the president to screw up the constitution until bush came into office...God should rule our country in tyranny...people shouldnt be gay people should be straight so we can become overpopulated and have no1 to adopt those poor children...people dont deserve individual rights...people are just animals and should be locked up and boring...thats what bush is going to do for our country! hes going to start with banning gay marriage...then hes going to repeat history and ban women rights, african american rights....every1 in the country will be white, blonde, blue eyes, believe in god, or go to hell

[rachlisztchopin]

i was just being sarcastic...im no bush lover...just a bush hater

[JustinTimberlake]

Yes, Bush is definitely a horrible president. I'm from Asia, and people in my country say that too, teachers in school always use him as and example of immorality. He has banned gay marriage,  bullied the weaker countries etc!!!!! He's gonna commit more sins in the future. Maybe he'll use his precious nuclear weapons? Maybe he'll rape Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera? Who knows? Maybe he'll ban piano playing? haha, we never know what will happen next. Let's just pray he won't be the president for long.

[dinosaurtales]

The people in Islamic countries don't like him either. But they liked Clinton much better.  huh.


I also don't get the *racist* labels attached to Bush.  I have seen zero actual evidence of that.  In fact 2 of the most important people in government right now (basically running the country) are blacks -  He proposed a Hispanic federal judge who was bombed out by the Dems.  Shall I go on?  

I think he's a good president. We'd be getting bombed at Starbucks by now if he wasn't.

[nad]

I think he's a good president. We'd be getting bombed at Starbucks by now if he wasn't.

I should watch out with those thoughts though if I were you....

I know about how politics work, i happen to study a bachelor in business administration and public management and I really think Bush is definitely not a good president. Just because U.S. happen to be the biggest nation of the U.N. doesnt mean they can do what they like for starters. This is arrogant as well as ignorant.

Anyway, the whole american system isnt that great.

[thomas_williams]

I think he's a good president. quote]

Seriously, I coundn't agree with you more.  I certainly hope Bush wins the election again this year.

[nad]

If his policy would only effect U.S. I wouldnt have so many problems with it. Since this is clearly not the case, I sincerely hope he doesn't win elections this year.

[thomas_williams]

If his policy would only effect U.S. I wouldnt have so many problems with it. Since this is clearly not the case, I sincerely hope he doesn't win elections this year.

Don't you realize that the people of Iraq are much safer after the removal of Saddam from power?

[chopiabin]

I would have agreed with the war had the premise been human rights and we had not gone into it unilaterally. We were lied to about the reasons for war. There are no WMDs. He has destroyed the authority of the U.N. Just because we are a powerful nation does not mean we can go around forcing our opinion on others. Look at Roman history.

[robert_henry]

My comments on this subject will be brief, and this is a good post to challenge because it brings up the main arguments against the war.  Be warned - there are facts ahead.  There is logic ahead.  If you are used to slogans and bumper-sticker politics, these facts might confuse you.

For the record, I lean toward libertarian beliefs.  I believe both parties dropped the ball, and I am objective enough to say so.  

I would have agreed with the war had the premise been human rights and we had not gone into it unilaterally.

Firstly, we didn't do it unilaterally.  Over thirty countries are participating.  Not as many as I would like, but the support is there.  

Secondly, the right thing to do should not and must not depend on the number of people willing to do it.  If something is the right thing to do, it simply is the right thing to do.  

Thirdly, the US under Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally (for one example) and the only charge in that situation was human rights violations, and I haven't heard anyone whining about that.  Even Howard Dean supported that unilateral action.  AND Clinton did not have UN approval for that action.  How does a democrat explain this, I wonder?  How about our recent actions in Haiti within the last month?  That was unilateral.  Was that wrong, too?  No WMD's there either.  Just human rights violations.  It seems some people's support of an action depends only on who is occupying the White House at any given moment.  

Fourthly, under the terms of the cease-fire agreement of 1991, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Saddam was required to disclose all WMD's and allow weapon inspectors full access to the country.  He never fully cooperated and ultimately kicked out the inspectors in 1998, a violation of the cease fire agreement which he signed.  Add to that the 15 or so UN resolutions ordering Saddam to cooperate, which he refused to honor.  

Fifthly, so often we hear the "illegal war" line, or the "rush to war" charge, or the "he just wants to finish what his daddy started" BS, or the "it was just a war for oil" business.

"Illegal war"

As I said before, the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement dictated (pardon the pun) that Saddam allow inspectors to inspect the country whenever and wherever they chose.  Saddam has disallowed that since 1991.  Add to this Saddam's continued firing on our planes - also a violation.

"Rush to war"

Uh, the UN passed 17 resolutions in 12 years.  We have been extraordinarily patient.  12 years of appeasement.  How many millions of people died during those 12 years under Saddam's hand?  How many were tortured, put in human shredders?  I thought leftists were pro human rights.  I guess not when a republican is in office.  I didn't hear the leftists complain when we bombed Somalia, Bosnia, or Iraq during Clinton's term...

"He just wants to finish what his daddy started"

Saddam started the war in 1991 by invading Kuwait, not George Bush, SR.  

"It was just a war for oil"

If we are there for oil, then where is it?  Name ONE story from any reputable news source that claims that we have taken oil.  We could have taken the oil in 1991.  We could take it now.  But we haven't.  If the world is against us as so many claim, then I am sure they LOVE to report about the US stealing oil.  We have been there one year.  Where are the reports?  
Further proof that we aren’t taking oil is the rising gas prices.  The OPEC nations are cutting production.  Are we taking it to retaliate? No.

We were lied to about the reasons for war. There are no WMDs.

Who said he had WMD's?  

Bill Clinton
John Kerry
Joseph Lieberman
Wesley Clark
Richard Gephardt
The UN
US Intelligence
German Intelligence
French Intelligence
British Intelligence
Russian Intelligence
Israeli Intelligence
George Bush

Saddam also used WMD's on his own people, which is an undeniable fact.

It turns out that we/they were all wrong.  But I don't see the justification for laying this at the feet of one man and saying that "he" lied to us.  Bush was misled about the intelligence just as was every other world leader.  

It is not a lie if you believed it to be true at the time.  He acted on the best intelligence available to him.  For years, the Intelligence agancies of world informed him that Iraq was devloping WMD's.  And he bombed them, even killing civilians.  After all that, it turns out the intelligence was wrong.  Oh, you think I'm talking about Bush.  I'm talking about Clinton.  He bombed Iraq too, ya know.

Yes, the intelligence failures should be investigated.  But that does not make him or any other world leader, including the Democratic front-runner John Kerry, a liar.  

It is also amusing to observe what is going on in these hearings lately.  The pacifists don't want war - they don't believe in preemption.  But these hearings are all about why something wasn't done preemptively.  Hilarious.

Have you thought of this:  what would have happened if Bush didn't act...if there were no war?  And what if we were then attacked with WMD's.  Then everyone would be crying "why didn't he do something."  Intellectual dishonesty.  Again, hilarious.  

He has destroyed the authority of the U.N. Just because we are a powerful nation does not mean we can go around forcing our opinion on others.

Firstly, the US doesn’t not report to UN.  We are a sovereign nation with our own constitution.

Secondly, the UN itself destroyed the authority of the UN.  This is the same UN that so corruptly filled its own wallets through the Oil-for-Food program, and is currently under investigation.  And I think any institution that passes 17 resolutions in order to ensure Iraq's cooperation, and then fails to enforce its own rulings in by definition a failure.  Imagine you are in a grocery store and you have just witnessed a mother telling her child to do something 17 times.  How effective is that mother, or by extension, the UN?

At some point, we all must start thinking for ourselves and use logic, and not just repeat some Jesse Jackson-type slogan that sounds good, or whatever the political rhetoric might be.  Do people really think comparing Bush to Hitler is a sound direction to take their argument?  Some do, and it just forfeits their standing as one who is intellectually honest.  I am for this war, but I am not pro-war.  I don't know of anyone who is.  There are proper uses of military strength.  The US has not been right in every situation in our short history, but considering our power and what we COULD do with it if we were truly evil as some think, I am proud that we have the best of intentions.  

Robert Henry

[Daevren]

"Uh, the UN passed 17 resolutions in 12 years.  We have been extraordinarily patient."

Do you know anything at all about the inspections and those resolutions? Do you know what the heads of the inspectors tought about what happened? The US constantly tried to provoke Saddam into undermining the inspections so they had a reason to bomb Iraq. Did you hear what Ritter said about this? He said the US undermined UNSCOM by bombing Iraq and turning UNSCOM into a spy agency. That is why the inspections stopped in 1998. And the inspections are the only thing that really reduced Iraqi weapons. It inspections weren't succesful then why didn't we find any weapons after the 2003 war?? And what Blix wrote recently in his book? He said that the US were threatening him to be more critical about Iraq then logic told him.

You can argue about this to some extend but you cannot claim that the resolutions made the war legal. If you claim this you are just wrong. Even the US admits that it is not legal in the sense of international law, thats why they call it irrelevant.

Also, the best way to break resolutions is to veto them. If Iraq had veto rights they woudn't be in violation of anything. Just look which country is in the lead in veto-ing resolutions. The US has veto-ed by far the most resolutions on about every topic imaginable.

"How many millions of people died during those 12 years under Saddam's hand? "

Then why did the US incease support for Saddam after he commited his worst crimes, using chemical weapons against Kurds and Iran?

"If we are there for oil, then where is it?  Name ONE story from any reputable news source that claims that we have taken oil.  We could have taken the oil in 1991. "

They only need to control it. Plus reputable news sources would shoot themselves in the foot when they would report it. The thing is that the oil contracts with Russia, China, France, Germany and who knows else are destroyed. The US is in control of the "stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prices in world history".

"Bush was misled about the intelligence just as was every other world leader. "

Ooh come on. You know that Tenet is a puppet and that has been pushed to find what Bush wanted the CIA to find. Everything we know about the focus of W Bush his administration pre 9/11 is that the most important foreign policy thing was Iraq.


"He acted on the best intelligence available to him."

So? Isn't he responseble for his own acts?

" He bombed Iraq too, ya know."

He should also be brought to trail for that. Maybe the upcomming Iraq trial.

" But that does not make him or any other world leader a liar."

Look at world history. You always need lies to start a war.

"what would have happened if Bush didn't act...if there were no war?"

1) International law wouldn't have been crippled
2) Alot of people would still be alive
3) There would be less terrorism
4) The iraqi society wouldn't be total chaos
5) There would be less stress between muslims and westerners

"what if we were then attacked with WMD's."

Huh what? No other counrty hinks Saddam is a threat. He is a threat to all in his reach. But he was at war with Iran while the US supported them. He almost lost so US shot down the Iranian airliner to make a statement about them being serious about it. So Iran stopped. Iran was weak, the Islamists that just seiged power in Iran killed all the skilled military leaders. Iraq still lost. Then they invaded Kuwait, much like the US invaded Panama in the same peroid. They still were an US ally at that point. The US was afraid they would install a puppet regine in Kuwait and leave so they made the negotiations fail and they attacked. Iraq was crushed. Then there were very stict sanctions, half a million children died because of them. There were weapon inspectors, if you read the reports you will know that they destroyed allot of weapons, they destroyed more than 27,000 chemical bombs, artillery shells and rockets, 30 Scuds, about 500 tons of mustard and nerve agents and thousands of tons of other chemicals. Estimates are that almost all weapons were destroyed but they couldn't be 100% sure. Iraq was also constantly bombed, the army was totally demorialised. Defence buged imploded, it was half that of Kuwait. Iraq was by far far far the weakest country in the region, barely able to keep the rebbelious elements in control. It it wasn't for US support to Saddam after 1991 there would have been a succesful revolution.

So we have this very weak contry. It invaded two neighbours, Iran and Kuwait, murdered people there. And then the US, by far the biggest military in the world, says that they think Iraq is a threat to them. Kuwait and Iran both don't think Iraq is a threat to them, let alone to the mighty US. The Kuwaitians laugh at the absurdity. Iran doesn't, they don't laugh because of the insanity, to them its scary, because they know they could be next.

But 60%(polls differ a little, I have seen higher numbers) of the people in the US were afraid of Iraq, thats insane. The degree of indoctrination, even among smart people, is scary. Also, 60% believed Saddam was behind 9/11.

"Saddam also used WMD's on his own people, which is an undeniable fact. "

It were his own people in the sense that Cherokees were Andrew Jacksons people.


So lets look at the reasons that might have motivated this war.

-Its not Saddams crimes becouse we suppored him throught the worst of them and even increased support after them. The motivation for the war cannot be a moral or ethical motive. Its just elementary logic.
-Its not because Iraq is a thread, Iraq is by far the weakest country in the region. No one feared him and there was no correct evidence that Iraq had WDMs ready aimed at Washington and Los Angeles(for example).

The reasons that can be true is:
-Imperialism
-Helping Israel
-Oil
-Personal things(Saddam trying to assassinate Bush sr(he almost succeded)).

[robert_henry]

Are you objective?  You sound like an apologist for the Iraq regime.  Did you ever once scold Iraq for their assistance and sponsorship of Islamic terrorism?  Or their continued efforts to further their weapons programs?  Or his human rights violations?  Everything Iraq did was the US's fault?  Or the UN's?  Does Saddam take any responsibility for murdering 12 million people?  You sound ready to invite Saddam over for dinner.

You are not wise to use Scott Ritter as a reference when discussing UN inspectors.  Pedophilia aside, every statement he makes is a contradiction of something he said earlier.  Or do you just quote the Ritter statements that agree with your position?  His contradictions are similar to Richard Clarke's, and to a lesser extent Hans Blix's incidentally.  Again, can you be objective?

Do I know anything about the resolutions?  I know what I read.  Like the real thing:

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/08/national/main528675.shtml

I like this part:  "Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution..."  

Thus, his defiance of all resolutions constitutes a violation of the ceasefire, which authorized the war.  The difference in the actions of UN and the US coalition was that the UN wanted to pass yet another resolution stating the same thing.  The coalition wanted to act.

As I read your post further down, I see that the US controls the oil.  Would you point me to the news story where it says we have taken the oil, or are stealing it?  I have "control" over children, but that doesn't mean I am harming them or mistreating them.  Right now, Iraq is selling its own oil while we protect them and the oil.  On June 30th of this year, we are scheduled to return control of Iraq back to the Iraqis.  Or are we to believe that every news agency in the world is willingly being hush-hush.  And how exactly would they shoot themselves in the foot?  

I see that there is another hour of rebutting your arguments ahead of me if I were to continue, and I simply do not have the time.  The main point of my post was to point out that many people are not principled.  They sit by and watch as the previous US administrations unilaterally bombed and invaded and they said nothing.  Now that another political party has done the same thing, they complain.  It is hypocrisy.

Daevren thinks that some US policies contributed to the instability in the Middle East.  I agree.

Does Daevren think that some UN policies contributed to this instability?  He doesn't say.

Does Daevren think that some Iraqi policies contributed to this instability?  Again, he doesn't say.

It must be entirely the fault of the US.  Where are the UN resolutions that condemn the US?

He implies that "helping Israel" is something unwanted.  That says a great deal about him/her.  A little anti-Semitic, aren't we?

I'm sorry to call this short.  

RH

[Daevren]

"Are you objective?"

At least I am trying...

"You sound like an apologist for the Iraq regime."

From your perspective maybe. But where did I say anything good, or anything at all about what I think about what Iraq did? I never said anything that defends Iraq.

"Did you ever once scold Iraq for their assistance and sponsorship of Islamic terrorism?"

There is no evidece to support this claim. The only story in existence is him paying money to Palestinian families of people that committed suicde attacks against Israel. But if you look closer you will read/hear somewhere that he payed that money to all families that lost someone in the Israel/Palestinain battle. For both stories there is no evidence. But lets say it was true. What should it matter? The US is the terrorist supporting country no.1. So Iraq can't while the US can?

"Or their continued efforts to further their weapons programs?  Or his human rights violations?  Everything Iraq did was the US's fault?  Or the UN's? Does Saddam take any responsibility for murdering 12 million people? "

Why should I have scolded Iraq for these things? Why should we discuss this topic? Like anyone would disagree. Aren't we discussing US policy? Isn't this topic called "George W. Bush"? Why can't I be objective without attacking Iraq on a point off topic and perfectly obvious to anyone?

"You sound ready to invite Saddam over for dinner."

I never attacked, hit, kicked, bullied, hurt, or even killed someone in my life. Why do you put me in the same corner as Saddam? I never said anything in defence of him. Its kind of sick that you say this. I think that the fact that you try to side normal people that disagree with you together with Saddam says alot about your kind of objectivity.


"
You are not wise to use Scott Ritter as a reference when discussing UN inspectors."

If someone knows what happened with the UNSOM teams in 1991-1998 then its Scott Ritter.

"His contradictions are similar to Richard Clarke's, and to a lesser extent Hans Blix's incidentally."

Its funny how everyone that criticises the US is considered to be contradictory. All these three men are people with knowledge and experience talking out freely. I do not know what contradictories you are aiming at but lets say they did contradict themselves. Ask yourself the question why they did contradict themselves.

"Thus, his defiance of all resolutions constitutes a violation of the ceasefire, which authorized the war."

If you know something about the UN then you know only the UN can decide if a resolution was violated. Its an UN resolution. You can't just take a resolution, claim Iraq broke it and attack.

"Would you point me to the news story where it says we have taken the oil..."

Oil is in the ground, it doesn't walk away. If you control Iraq you control the oil. Do I have to find a news report claiming that there are major US forces in Iraq? I don't think so.

"On June 30th of this year, we are scheduled to return control of Iraq back to the Iraqis. Or are we to believe that every news agency in the world is willingly being hush-hush."

Like the US will then pull back all its troops and reduce political influence to 0%... If Iraq is officially in control that doesn't mean that the US controls the oil no longer. The goverment that will be put in place will be US friendly. Like the US will order them to sell to oil to Russia and China in 10 years...  

"And how exactly would they shoot themselves in the foot?" All 'reputable news sources' are in the hands of US multi-nations. They have their own interests. If they would attack Bush(on any topic) or the control of the oil then they would shoot themselves in the foot because they benefit of Bush policy regarding multi-nationals and from US control of the oil.

" see that there is another hour of rebutting your arguments ahead of me if I were to continue, and I simply do not have the time. "

I bet you do...

"The main point of my post was to point out that many people are not principled."

You may be right when you say alot of people aren't principled, on both sides of the discussion. But when you defend a war that is obviously illegal and has nothing to do with morals then how can you claim to be principled. To me your point was that you are very disciplined in loyalty to authority.

"They sit by and watch as the previous US administrations unilaterally bombed and invaded and they said nothing.  Now that another political party has done the same thing, they complain."

Thats not true for alot of people. It may be true for the French, german, Russian and some other goverments. But since when are goverments principle? They act on their own interests always.

"Does Daevren think that some UN policies contributed to this instability?"

What instability are you referring to? The instability in Iraq?  I think the UN should have tried harder to prevent the war. I think there shouldn't have been food and medicene sanctions. But the discussion about instability misses the butchering of Saddam, that is stability. If you call a popular revolution in Iraq instability then I think the UN should have tried harder to achive this instability.

"Does Daevren think that some Iraqi policies contributed to this instability? "

The iraqi policy in the months before the war were obviously self-destructive. But I wonder if there was anything at all Iraq could have done to stop the war. Or a relative peaceful invasion.

"It must be entirely the fault of the US.  Where are the UN resolutions that condemn the US? "

There can't be any because the US could veto or has veto-ed them. Remember the US got condemned for international terrorism for their actions in Nicaragua. The US veto-ed and ignored everything the UN tried to get justice done.

"He implies that "helping Israel" is something unwanted.  That says a great deal about him/her.

Here you really go horribly out of track. Firstly, I never said that helping Israel was good or bad. I only said it may have been a reason for the war. What does that say about me?

" A little anti-Semitic, aren't we?"

What the hell? Since when is criticizing(which I didn't even do yet) Israel anti-semitic. I do not even see Israel as a jewish state. I do not even think that the state Israel should dissappear. I just think killing people is wrong, if that is anit-Semitic, then so be it. Bombing and invading Iraq to help Israel commit ethnic cleansing is wrong.

[WhiteKnight2k5]

I think he is a liar who tries to benefit the wealthy. he doesn't care about those who are less fortunate than him, and he is trying to deny or to take away rights from minorities (abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action). He also fails to see the line between church and state. I can not stand this "president," and would like to hear soem opinions.

Yours Truly,
Chop

Bush may not have had hindsight 20/20 when he took us to war in iraq, but hes an honest man.  He doesn't want special rights and privileges for minorities, he wants equal rights.  America is divided on the issue of abortion, and Bush beleives that they life of the child supercedes the whim of a mother who chose to engage in sexual activity.  Gays can have civil unions with all the benefits as marriage, but marriage is between a man and a women and that is the way most Americans, including John Kerry, beleive it should remain.

[WhiteKnight2k5]

I intensely dislike the "president."  If you can call him that, as he was shoved into office in a rather questionable fluster of voting miscounts in the state where his brother was governor.  Then the supreme court handed him the presidency.  This "president" lied to the public about Iraq, trying to justify the war by claiming weapons of mass destruction, and trying to hint to Americans that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11, which is untrue.  Most Americans still believe there was a connection, even though their own government admits that there was none.  Only now that our "intelligence" has proven a failure, they are crying about how great a humanitarian war that it was, when in reality just about everything in Iraq is worse now than before.  This president passed the Patriot Act, a gross infringement on our constitutional liberties.  He gutted the environmental protections that generations had worked to build to ensure a clean and healthy environment, all so corporate sponsors could make profits more easily.  This president almost seems dangerous for the future of the United States.

Bush won florida legitamately; a democrat-funded study after the election did yet another recount and they had the same results as the first count and all the subsequent recounts. (Bush wins.)  Go look it up.  The supreme court had to put an end to all the ridiculous recounts, it did not "hand Bush the presidency."  The Patriot act was passed almost unanimously (98-1 in the senate, 357-66 in the house).  Kerry was an ardent supporter of the Patriot act:

"Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th."- John Kerry

Most of its supporters now beleive it should be adjusted or new legislation should take its place to make sure it isn't abused in the future,  but whose job is that? That is Congress's job.

I can't argue with the accusation that Bush's policies in the realm of environmental protection are a cause for concern, he has played into the hands of the companies that would benefit from loose regulation, wittingly or unwittingly.  And by the way,  you can call him the President, because that is what he is regardless of whether you approve of his administration.

I would vote for this "idiot" again.  Why?  Because if he isn't elected, far more damage will be done.  Important judicial nominees the democratic minority in the senate has used filibuster to prevent a vote on are going to expire at the end of this term, and next year a number of Supreme Court judges may retire.  America can't afford to have the extreme liberal judges that a democratic president is likely to nominate, we need constitutionalist judges on the supreme court and the federal appeals courts.  Of course, the republicans can either vote down liberal nominees to these positions or use the same unconstitutional tactics the democrats have used to prevent up or down votes on judges if the judges have majority support.  Republicans have shown these tactics, which abuse a senate discussion rule that allows unlimited debate on a subject before vote to prevent a vote from occuring, to be unconstitutional.  If you want to know more about this just ask me or do the research yourself.

[Daevren]

In a democracy you always needs lies to go to war.


Bush is a liar and his lies were far too extreme.

[dinosaurtales]

I think I've asked this before, but what did he lie about?  How did you know he was lying - i.e. what did you know for a fact that he lied about?  I hear the liar thing all the time, but nobody ever says anything specific, except quoting from newspapers or others, which doesn't count.  

I personally have no particular knowledge of the intricacies of central intelligence, so I wouldn't know if he was lying or not.  He strikes me as an honest person trying to do the best job he can with a lousy situation.

[Daevren]

Just read the messages I already posted.

But to point them out plainly, he lied about the reasons why he wanted to start the war. Regardless of if the WMD is a lie or not, elementry logic dictates us that this can not be the reason. Same with Saddam being cruel. We liked it when it actually happened, we increased support after Halabja. So if Bush is talking about WMDs, ethics, evil, democracy etc it is a lie because he is not being honest. He is misleading us and hiding the reasons for why he wants to go to war. He doesn't say why he wants to go to war, he points out those points that will let him go to war.

He could get away with that. But he made a mistake. The WDMs. They tell you now that it doesn't matter anymore. But he claimed that he knew exactly where they were. He claimed all kinds of things about the existence of WDMs in Iraq. Fact is that he knew sh*t. He only suspected it.  

Also the thing about democracy is a lie. Bringing democracy to Iraq is not true. The US is ignoring important leaders and parties at the moment in Iraq. This is why the violence excalated. They only talk with people they like. Of course they can make up nice excusses, and they do but those are lies too. They are not bringing democracy to Iraq.

And the thing about transfer of power, that is also a lie. If the US transfers sovereignty to Iraq then that means the new Iraqi goverment is in total control. So are they going to withdraw all forces? Of course not? If they did there would be a civil war. So who is in power? The US controls the country by force but the only sovereign power is the new Iraqi goverment? What if the new Iraqi goverment asks them to leave? Will they leave? Of course not. Thats impossible? What exactly do they mean with transfering the sovereignty to the new Iraqi goverment? Well, we can say one thing. It doesn't mean transfer of sovereignty. It is a hoax and a lie.

Just look at history. Were the people being misleaded when the US went to Vietnam in 1965? Yes probably. They even admit it. Vietnam was a non-issue. It didn't mean anything. But of course there were all kinds of lies.

When did the opposition and demostrations start? After how many bombs dropped? After how many people killed? I don't have the numbers but it is alot.

But with Iraq it started long before the war started. This has never happened before. And why? Because the lies were so bad. If you support regime changes and US imperialism, pre-emtive reactions(another nice paradox invented) then don't vote for Bush because he lies bad. He will not be able to contruct new lies to start a new war. Plus he lost all credebility outside the US, even in the UK.

So if you want your goverment to bomb stuff and kill people don't vote for Bush.

[trunks]

I agree that it is high time the Bush should be 'uprooted' and sent to wither and burn in fire. Apart from overthrowing 2 of the world's nastiest regimes - and there are yet nastier regimes elsewhere, notably in Asia, that have more pressing causes to be removed - he has otherwise done more disservice than service.

[rainmaker]

 hey everyone!!!!!!!
     does it worth talking about that ignorant? and if you don't believe that, i got an example: once he went to brasil and in a comment of the brasilian president about the brasilian people, he asked if there are black people in brasil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
   i got a sheet from a magazine with some ''treasures'' of bush's junior mouth!
  i will look for it and write some! some other time!

[Daevren]

There are three books full of those things. But Bush is intelligence doesn't have much to do with what his administration does. Unless you really like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and those other fundamentalists you shouldn't vote for Bush.