60 Failures and Falsehoods of the Bush Admin.

[TomServo69]

BobJohnson said:

Now you are just getting plain mean man. I can understand Republicans just fine and your statement, My Grandpa was Republican and so is a good chunk of my family. I'm sure fighting Saddam to get weapons back is a good ANALOGY but not entirely true, Oil fields can be easily grabbed with a democratic administration is one, getting back at Saddam for Desert Storm another but I think the connection is too good with the Oil one. Bush owns oil spots all over Texas, has friends in the same business, and with that his friends are given contracts in Iraq to rebuild? If you think we are fighting this war to get WMD back that are gone, and not justifing any other reasons, then that's a pretty closed-minded way of thinking about it.

I have gone through different theories for the last year and I still don't know why we are there. You saying exactly why we are there is unfortunately intellectual suicide, it's like saying we were fighting Hitler in WWII.

Great to see you getting sensible with me. I agree with the oil thing, but, you know what? We have Alaska, one of the hottest oil spots in the world and you know what? Congress won't let us drill there. People will say, "Well, he just wants to drill in the wildlife preserve". False. They won't allow drilling anywhere. And, no, I'm not saying it's all over WMD's because we didn't give them any of what I consider to be WMD's, we gave them simple things such as planes, ammo, anti-aircraft guns, etc. WMD's I consider to be chemical weapons, nukes, etc. I'm pretty sure we didn't give them any of those. And, what's so wrong with getting something out of helping out Iraq? The time and money were spent, people were freed from a dictatorship, lives were spent. Should America come out with nothing? And I don't think it was about "getting Saddam back" so much as it was finishing the job that Clinton ignored. Just like he ignored the first WTC bombings.

But, I'm off to Modern History class where I'm sure I'll get into the same argument,

Peace be with you,

Just some thoughts,

Servo

[Mr. Atari]

TheOne19 said:

Let's just agree that anyone here that is for OR against the current administration is not "blind". We're all fairly intelligent people here (I'm assuming), so everyone probably has very good reasons to support the side that they do.

I will say this: if the Dems want to win back the presidency, they need to quit whining about Bush and focus on letting people know just how exactly they will clean up his mess if elected.

What he said.

I'm not playing in this debate. But TheOne19 has a good point. Intelligent Americans (and there are more than you'd think-- regardless of the ratings of TV's "Friends"), especially undecided intelligent Americans are going to get pretty sick of "Bash Bush" as the only tactic of the Dem's campaign. It may backfire on Kerry before November.#nosmileys

[BobJohnson]

TomServo69 said:

Great to see you getting sensible with me. I agree with the oil thing, but, you know what? We have Alaska, one of the hottest oil spots in the world and you know what? Congress won't let us drill there. People will say, "Well, he just wants to drill in the wildlife preserve". False. They won't allow drilling anywhere. And, no, I'm not saying it's all over WMD's because we didn't give them any of what I consider to be WMD's, we gave them simple things such as planes, ammo, anti-aircraft guns, etc. WMD's I consider to be chemical weapons, nukes, etc. I'm pretty sure we didn't give them any of those. And, what's so wrong with getting something out of helping out Iraq? The time and money were spent, people were freed from a dictatorship, lives were spent. Should America come out with nothing? And I don't think it was about "getting Saddam back" so much as it was finishing the job that Clinton ignored. Just like he ignored the first WTC bombings.

But, I'm off to Modern History class where I'm sure I'll get into the same argument,

Peace be with you,

Just some thoughts,

Servo

I'm glad too that we are agreeing on something ;D. But you know what is the biggest oil field in the world? Syberia, it was recently discovered to have lots of oil and nobody I believe is drilling yet. If Bush or other politicians get their heads out of their be-hinders, we could work with Russia and make more business their then at the Middle East. But too there could lie problems, I don't want land of such beauty that is Syberia (and Alaska) to be drilled and cause damage to our earth. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the future!

**brought to you by no one**

[lemminkimmen]

Here's one:

"Read my lips, no new taxes"

Then he raised taxes.

ooooops!
That was from bush the first's campaign/admin.

See, the lies go WAAAAAYYYYY back.

Just like most politicians-

[CherokeeJack]

Well the first step to making this country better would be Bush losing the election in november. The country wont fall apart no matter the outcome, but at least (at the very least) will listen to the american people and not go into self rightous mode.

"Here's your problem. Some one set this Bush on Self-Rightous"

We are going to need a better diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world and that is what Kerry is pushing for. I never believed on democracy by force, but Bush does. We've messed up the middle east even more and if we fail, the whole thing is most likely going to fall completely apart. I want us in Iraq to succed now since we invaded. It has to, but we cant f*cking do it right when we keep taking the stance that America is infalible and we are always right about worldly events. esp when we veto a bill condeming the former Hamas member's assassination. We can't be high and mighty, we are a world power THE world power and we need to set examples, not push others around.

You cant fight terror with terror.

We lost 3,000 civilians in 9/11, Iraq has lost over 10,000 since the war started (civilians).

www.iraqbodycount.net/

[lemminkimmen]

hey cj, remember this from four years ago?
An actual, true quote, pre-election 2000:
(And if you don't know if Karl Rove is, I envy you...still, know your enemy...)

KARL ROVE, Bush's long-time political guru and White House advisor:
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing."


HMMMMMMM........wonder what that means.....
better not think about that too long.....

[CherokeeJack]

I also remember the laws Jeb Bush passed to keep African Americans away from the polls in floridia.

My dog is going insane. I better go see whats up.

he stopped.

[lemminkimmen]

Good thing, too, my dog was asking me what was up with your dog.

[Mr. Atari]

Sorry. I really tried to stay out of this. But I'm in one of my moods today (I skipped my meds).

Before 9/11 there were a couple major terrorist attacks that affected Americans.

In 1979 Iranian terrorists took 70 Americans hostage during the Carter administration. Carter's "friendly" foreign policy that was the primary cause of the energy/oil crisis didn't scare anyone. Reagan came in a year later with more of a "cowboy" foreign policy that clearly showed the world that America will not be intimidated. Not only did Reagan orchestrate the release of the hostages, his challenging rhetoric and aggressive foreign policy also helped dismantle communism.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. The Clinton administration allowed the terrorists to be tried like American citizens, even appointing them attorneys and allowing them the right to silence. As if the crime was a standard felony rather than an act of war. The result? Terrorists learned that if they attacked Americans on their soil, they could pretty much get away with it. As a result, the 1990s were a camelot for terrorists training camps (mostly in Afghanistan).

So Cherokee, you can't fight terrorism with terror. But you certainly can't fight it with soft diplomacy either.

And for all of Clarke's whining, he seems to forget that he was the "terrorism czar" during the decade when terrorism grew more than any other time in history. Before Bush even showed up.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25466-2004Mar25.html#nosmileys

[Mr. Atari]

Sorry, now that I got started, I have more.

In 1945, after the dismantling of Germany's and Japan's governments and the destruction of their cities, it took 10-15 years of occupation and aid before either country was anywhere close to stable again. In Iraq, they will have a constitutional government in place by the end of June. Barely more than one year after the START of the invasion.

And if we're going to list how the war has affected the citizens of Iraq, don't forget to list the unprecedented women's rights and religious freedoms now available to Iraqis. Or the school (elementary and college) enrollment that has gone up more than 500%. Or the fact that 22.3 million doses of measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and polio vaccines have been provided, enough to vaccinate 4.2 million children.

Oh yeah, and a ruthless tyrant who ruled by torture (tor-CHA) and murder is now in U.S. custody.

So whether or not you think the invasion was justified, at least get the entire picture of the changes the invasion has brought. Is there still violence and a lack of personal security over there? Sure. But wasn't it someone on this board who posted a Jefferson quote about how if you're willing to sacrifice freedom for security you don't deserve either?

[Mr. Atari]

One more thing.

Criticize Bush all you want. I might even join in (especially if it's about guns). But you can't hold him to blame on both sides of the same issue.

For example-
If Bush has oil interests in Middle East policy, he's evil. But if he drills in Alaska, he's evil. Either way, he's evil, but he has to keep giving me oil so I can have that SUV.

If Bush raises taxes, he's evil. But if he gives tax advantages to families (like the refund I got for my kids), he's wasting our money and therefore evil.

If Bush doesn't give money for social reform and compassion programs, he's evil. But if he does give money for compassion programs, but those programs have a religious mission statement, he's evil.

If Bush goes to war, he's evil. But if Bush was in the National Guard during Vietnam, and didn't fight, he's a coward.

If Bush is aggresive in fighting terrorism, he's a bully. If he wasn't aggressive enough before 9/11, he's responsible for the WTC attacks.

If Bush waffles on issues and plays to the polling data, he's a cowardly politician. But if he stands by his personal convictions in decision making, he's self-righteous.

I could go on, but you get the point.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson-
"Welcome to double-standardville. Population: You."#nosmileys#nosmileys

[yousonuva]

sampo said:

If Bush goes to war, he's evil. But if Bush was in the National Guard during Vietnam, and didn't fight, he's a coward.

Sorry sampo, I am (or as you were) with you on not tryin to get in to all of this, but I just had to call you out on this. Bush didn't go to war. He sat in his office whilst others went to war for him. If tosay he doesn't back down from a fight, that's right. But it's more of a politcal fight for him than a physical one. That's all I'm saying in this thread now.

[MonsterX]

Rave on! I usually try to avoid political discussions like this because no matter how much you complain and say that your opinion is the right one, your not going to convince anyone else! You’re not going to make someone who likes Bush to turn around and hate him, and vice versa. It’s like religion. You cant turn a Christian into a Satanist just by telling him, “Your wrong and here’s why!”

Religion and politics are the 2 magical subjects that can make and break friendships. They are best avoided in family gatherings and social events. No matter how much anyone complains and waves their fist in the air, the only thing their going to accomplish is pissing people off.

[Mr. Atari]

yousonuva said:

Sorry sampo, I am (or as you were) with you on not tryin to get in to all of this, but I just had to call you out on this. Bush didn't go to war. He sat in his office whilst others went to war for him. If tosay he doesn't back down from a fight, that's right. But it's more of a politcal fight for him than a physical one. That's all I'm saying in this thread now.

Sorry to break the news to you yousonuva, but it's been about...oh 2500 years or so since a political leader fought alongside the armies in battle. Sure there are exceptions like Napoleon, but can you really tell me that Lincoln or Churchill were cowards for not physically fighting? Or that they weren't primarily responsible for "going to war"? It's a nice sentiment, but it doesn't impact my original argument one bit.

[yousonuva]

Dammit! Why must you suck me in, sampo? My point is that you're comparing fighting a war with your life vs. a war with your statements, politics and beliefs. They're just too different things to me. Now that's all I'm saying.....