For Bush, it's from bad to worse

[Ocean Breeze]

Lol, that's the thing, if a country has WMDs wouldn't you NOT want to invade them? You didn't see the U.S trying to invade the USSR, or North Korea for that matter.

case in point. !! exactly ! The only nations that bush can threaten and invade/attack are those that do not have serious defense weapons. This is why they thought Iraq would be a "cakewalk". Too bad they overestimated in their over confidence and underestimated the Iraqis and the impact this decision would have.

WMD = Iraq- nothing but a red herring. (but it worked on so many ........because they have this visual from all the movies they watch......and the fear engendering bush regime played to the fear factor. Not rocket science by any stretch.

 

[Nascar_James]

It's been known that Al Zarqawi established an Al Qaeda group in Iraq in May 2002. This was before the President launched his retaliation against Al qaeda and Saddam. Saddam was harboring the Al Qaeda terrorists and he got what was coming to him. We need to maintain ZERO tolerance for terrorists around the globe.

where do you get this stuff from??? The Iraq invasion was NOT about terrorism !! It was clearly defined with such absoluteness and certainty..... as a WMD issue. (even tho the inspectors were working and finding nada. ........and under much duress from the bushregime.)

REMEMBER ????? IRAQ........bush's reason to invade .....repeated ad nauseum as he beat those war drums...... was WMD that scared (supposedly) the pee out of bush. THe fact that he LIED makes this a historical disaster......of a magnitude to be determined.

Ocean, do you know what a crisis we would have if terrorists ever got their hands on WMD or nuclear weapons? Any risk of WMD at the hands of Saddam where he may pass them on to his new found friends was not worth taking. He should have learnt not to associate with terrosists. He brought this on himself.

Lol, that's the thing, if a country has WMDs wouldn't you NOT want to invade them? You didn't see the U.S trying to invade the USSR, or North Korea for that matter.

Well, USSR isn't a threat anymore since the cold war is over. However, although North Korea is a Communist country and we have no diplomatic relations with them, I highly doubt they will pass any nuclear material or technology to the terrorists. Although Kim Jong Il is an ultra eccentric commie pinko, he is not a terrorist. Iran on the other hand is a different story. We will not allow them to successfully acheive nuclear weapons. The new president there has a shady terrorist past and can't be trusted. Mark my words, Iran will not succeed in it's Nuclear program. If they hypothetically do suceed, it would be similar to handing nuclear weapons to the terrorists on a silver platter.

 

[no1important]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

Sorry it is a typo. I do not condone, I will fix it. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

Sorry it is a typo. I do not condone, I will fix it. Thanks for pointing it out.

:wink: :wink:

 

[Kellen]

It's been known that Al Zarqawi established an Al Qaeda group in Iraq in May 2002. This was before the President launched his retaliation against Al qaeda and Saddam. Saddam was harboring the Al Qaeda terrorists and he got what was coming to him. We need to maintain ZERO tolerance for terrorists around the globe.

where do you get this stuff from??? The Iraq invasion was NOT about terrorism !! It was clearly defined with such absoluteness and certainty..... as a WMD issue. (even tho the inspectors were working and finding nada. ........and under much duress from the bushregime.)

REMEMBER ????? IRAQ........bush's reason to invade .....repeated ad nauseum as he beat those war drums...... was WMD that scared (supposedly) the pee out of bush. THe fact that he LIED makes this a historical disaster......of a magnitude to be determined.

Ocean, do you know what a crisis we would have if terrorists ever got their hands on WMD or nuclear weapons? Any risk of WMD at the hands of Saddam where he may pass them on to his new found friends was not worth taking. He should have learnt not to associate with terrosists. He brought this on himself.

Lol, that's the thing, if a country has WMDs wouldn't you NOT want to invade them? You didn't see the U.S trying to invade the USSR, or North Korea for that matter.

Well, USSR isn't a threat anymore since the cold war is over. However, although North Korea is a Communist country and we have no diplomatic relations with them, I highly doubt they will pass any nuclear material or technology to the terrorists. Although Kim Jong Il is an ultra eccentric commie pinko, he is not a terrorist. Iran on the other hand is a different story. We will not allow them to successfully acheive nuclear weapons. The new president there has a shady terrorist past and can't be trusted. Mark my words, Iran will not succeed in it's Nuclear program. If they hypothetically do suceed, it would be similar to handing nuclear weapons to the terrorists on a silver platter.

Gee, thanks for pointing that out James, that's why I referred to it as the USSR and not Russia. Anyway, let's get back on topic shall we?

Bush was not arguing for war in order to stop Iraq from acquiring WMDs, he said they already had them, when they did not, why would you be willing to invade a country that has nukes? Personally, I would be afraid of a retaliation but I'm not Bush so I don't exactly understand his brilliant logic. BTW, I happen to believe that no country should have WMDs and the U.S is not an exception.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

Bush didn't even have proof that Iraq was trying to obtain WMD. He lied about that too. Remember those aluminum tubes? Those weren't suitable for nuclear weapons. The Nigerian yellowcake? An outright that, when exposed, caused the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame. There were those killer drone aircraft too. They turned out to be little more than toys, had nothing to do with WMD, and were not at all dangerous.

Just what was Saddam going to give to his (imaginary) terrorist friends? He didn't have anything, he wasn't making anything, and he had no ties to al Qaeda. The whole thing was a lie. Bush is a liar.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

Bush didn't even have proof that Iraq was trying to obtain WMD. He lied about that too. Remember those aluminum tubes? Those weren't suitable for nuclear weapons. The Nigerian yellowcake? An outright that, when exposed, caused the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame. There were those killer drone aircraft too. They turned out to be little more than toys, had nothing to do with WMD, and were not at all dangerous.

Just what was Saddam going to give to his (imaginary) terrorist friends? He didn't have anything, he wasn't making anything, and he had no ties to al Qaeda. The whole thing was a lie. Bush is a liar.

Of course he is . (lier). What made red flags go up was when bush told Cretien and others that he did not have to provide proof of his claims.......(when he was pinned down and asked for proof). Talk about a tip off ......and a stupidly arrogant one at that. It boggles that ANYONE BELIEVES A fecking word he says..........let alone repeat his "dogma" as gosple. Sheesh. Are the neo cons brain dead as well??? Or so bent on THEIR cause, anything else be damned. If that sounds a tad harsh.......t's so because it is. :wink: One is hard pressed to accept that a population of intelligent people can be so brainwashed so easily.......or duped so easily. Maybe the media is the contributing factor here and the population is the innocent victim of the bush indoctrination. ..........but the US media is not the only source for information in the current age.........so that is not an excuse.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[splinters]

Bush's ratings dropping still.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/17/poll.bush/

The surprising thing is that it is reported by CNN.

Why surprising? CNN is known for being a left leaning news source.

If it's so drastically biased, what's keeping CNN from simply using the endless stream of trash your president produces as material?

 

[meitme]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

bush won't be in next election anyway sombody else will. as i remember after rosevelt i think had many terms in office they made it so presidents can only have 2 terms in office.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

bush won't be in next election anyway sombody else will. as i remember after rosevelt i think had many terms in office they made it so presidents can only have 2 terms in office.

We'll have quite a list of potentially good Republican candidates for the next election (in 3 years). Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Condoleeza Rice, Bill Frist are amung a list of many.

 

[Reverend Blair]

We'll have quite a list of potentially good Republican candidates for the next election (in 3 years). Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Condoleeza Rice, Bill Frist are amung a list of many.

Where's the list of potentially good ones? These ones all suck.

BTW, (Skank for me) Condi said she wasn't running. Is she a liar?

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Potentially good, huh? Well, I suppose we all have the potential for goodness.

 

[no1important]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

Why are Americans so "brainwashed" to vote for either the Dems or Republicans all the time? Why haven't they embraced a third party or independents?

Most countries seem to have more than 2 parties.

Personally I think Nadar was the best person never elected president.

 

[Nascar_James]

We'll have quite a list of potentially good Republican candidates for the next election (in 3 years). Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Condoleeza Rice, Bill Frist are amung a list of many.

Where's the list of potentially good ones? These ones all suck.

BTW, (Skank for me) Condi said she wasn't running. Is she a liar?

I heard her say it myself a couple of weeks ago, Rev. Still, 3 years is an eternity when it comes to deciding whether to run for the white house. She will surely not say it now given that she is working for the president and still has 3 years left.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Still, 3 years is an eternity

you ain't fecking kidding..... :roll:

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

Bush didn't even have proof that Iraq was trying to obtain WMD. He lied about that too. Remember those aluminum tubes? Those weren't suitable for nuclear weapons. The Nigerian yellowcake? An outright that, when exposed, caused the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame. There were those killer drone aircraft too. They turned out to be little more than toys, had nothing to do with WMD, and were not at all dangerous.

Oh for the love of Pete! We keep going around in cirlces on this argument. I for one will put a stop to it once and for all.

Since we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration had lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the President lied, then there sure as hell are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998.

It appears those on the extreme left including Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, had all said that we should be going after Iraq back before the war on terror started. Why change their tunes after the war started?

Here are some quotes ...

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I for one will put a stop to it once and for all.

I seriously DOUBT that. :roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

You'll put a stop to nothing, Nero. The Democrats were getting their information from Bush. They didn't he'd lie about something that important.

Bush had no proof though. That's why he so much trouble cobbling together a coalition...governments would ask him fo proof and he wouldn't have any. The UN was saying that they couldn't find any weapons. Saddam was insisting that he'd destroyed the few weapons he did have and providing documentation. Weapons experts were saying that the biological and chemical weapons were past date and nobody could come up with even a sliver of proof that Saddam had managed to buy more.

When Colin Powell went to the UN with his pictures of cartoon trucks, people were openly laughing at him. The story made no sense and the only proof he had were some drawings.

You should get your news from a source other than Fox, Nero. The international press reported on what a complete and utter liar Bush was well before the illegal invasion.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

You'll put a stop to nothing, Nero. The Democrats were getting their information from Bush. They didn't he'd lie about something that important.

Bush had no proof though. That's why he so much trouble cobbling together a coalition...governments would ask him fo proof and he wouldn't have any. The UN was saying that they couldn't find any weapons. Saddam was insisting that he'd destroyed the few weapons he did have and providing documentation. Weapons experts were saying that the biological and chemical weapons were past date and nobody could come up with even a sliver of proof that Saddam had managed to buy more.

When Colin Powell went to the UN with his pictures of cartoon trucks, people were openly laughing at him. The story made no sense and the only proof he had were some drawings.

You should get your news from a source other than Fox, Nero. The international press reported on what a complete and utter liar Bush was well before the illegal invasion.

...........and the bush goons claim that SH was /is a lier.!!! ONe of the reasons that SH cannot and will not have a "fair " trial.....as long as it is operated by the usregime. He might tell some truths that the bush clowns would have a tough time refuting with FACTS........but .....(sigh) sadly not with more fecking lies.

gotta really wonder about the likes that would support a lier /murderer / thief for a leader. Maybe that reflects the fabric of the us.population.

but "they" sure have stuck their foot in it this time. (Karma?? ) as whatever they condemn other nations for now.....THEY themselves are to blame for too. ...and have set a precident for same. (in many cases). In that sense they cannot be taken seriously....... as they do not ascribe to any humanitarian example.

Money cannot buy honor, ethics, honesty , integrety, accountability, & credibility ...........and without those....the 'power " diminishes .

Just as bush goons condemned SH for "lying" about WMD .......so shall the bush goons be condemned. about lying about WMD. So many lies .........so little time.