NationStates Jolt Archive

I am well aware that almost EVERYONE on this site hates Bush. I however am a supporter of his. I am proud to say I am a conservitive, and while I do not support all of Bush's decisons, I do support the War in Iraq. All I can see is the positive. We have liberated an entire nation, we stopped a brutal dictator who was clearly violating UN orders. And we are fighting a war against the orginizations of terror and sleaze.

What I dont realize is why everyone shows Bush as a warmongering Bastard. The man is trying despretley to do what he has to do, but the lvery powerful liberal media makes him look like a jackass (thats a disscussion for another thread however). I also hear a lot of people saying that he just came up with excuses to go to war. Well I see it as this: If we hadn't gone to Iraq, these people wouldn't be free. The man (Sadaam) was told to get rid of his WMD, (which I believe are hidden in mosques right now, just think, you can't go in there, how are you gonna find em?) and he didnt. We did what we had to do. I realize civillians died, I realize soldiers died, and I feel sorrow for them and thier families, but thats war folks, people die.


I don't understand why people think Bush went to Iraq for personal gain. If he wanted to kill Sadaam, he could have hired a merc or sent in specialists to kill him. But he didnt. Plus, there really isnt a reason why Bush would want to go into Iraq besides what he stated. Oil? Well, its been about 2 years in Iraq...No Oil.

I understand by posting this I am basically throwing myself into the lions den. I don't expect you to change your views, only to try and enlighten you. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I would just like to mention that Jimmy Carter (or a different President) made some sort of law banning the President to attempt an assasination.

The wording may be off a bit, but could someone clarify? hmm?

It would be nice if Bush supporters came up with some other scapegoat than the "liberal media." It's old and it's been disproven so many times it's not even funny.

Colodia: I guess it could be, but Bush is President of the US. If he really wanted to keep it quiet, he could make sure it was kept quiet. Not that I condone that sort of action.

I would just like to mention that Jimmy Carter (or a different President) made some sort of law banning the President to attempt an assasination.

The wording may be off a bit, but could someone clarify? hmm?


Jimmy Carter in an attempt to kiss up to Iran banned the US government from assassinating anybody around the world, so If Bush had Saddam Hussein killed whil he was in power, that would violate US law.

It would be nice if Bush supporters came up with some other scapegoat than the "liberal media." It's old and it's been disproven so many times it's not even funny.


It has already been proven that the US media is more Liberal than the American people are, deal with it.

I remember hearing somewhere that the US Government does not conduct assassinations.

Then again, it's Bush after all, he kind of picks and chooses which laws to follow.

Incertonia: Listen to the stories presented to you by the liberal media more carefully. Plus, dont tell me you havent seen the billions (I know I am exaggerating here) of ads on TV denouncing Bush that are paid for by the Media Fund. By the way, I believe I stated this topic would not be discussed in my thread.

It would be nice if Bush supporters came up with some other scapegoat than the "liberal media." It's old and it's been disproven so many times it's not even funny.


It has already been proven that the US media is more Liberal than the American people are, deal with it.I smacked you around on another thread on this very subject and you have yet to site any proof whatsoever that the media is liberal as you claim it is. Either put up or shut up, but be warned that if you try to put up, you'll get it slammed in your face.

Incertonia: Listen to the stories presented to you by the liberal media more carefully. Plus, dont tell me you havent seen the billions (I know I am exaggerating here) of ads on TV denouncing Bush that are paid for by the Media Fund. By the way, I believe I stated this topic would not be discussed in my thread.

Indirectly, I had to read it again before I noticed it.

It would be nice if Bush supporters came up with some other scapegoat than the "liberal media." It's old and it's been disproven so many times it's not even funny.


It has already been proven that the US media is more Liberal than the American people are, deal with it.I smacked you around on another thread on this very subject and you have yet to site any proof whatsoever that the media is liberal as you claim it is. Either put up or shut up, but be warned that if you try to put up, you'll get it slammed in your face.


Are you always this hostile? I will answer you when you grow up and stop trolling.

Incertonia: Listen to the stories presented to you by the liberal media more carefully. Plus, dont tell me you havent seen the billions (I know I am exaggerating here) of ads on TV denouncing Bush that are paid for by the Media Fund. By the way, I believe I stated this topic would not be discussed in my thread.Threads are open to hijacking, first of all--always have been and always will be.

Secondly, any money spent by the Media fund is easily offset by the free coverage the right-wing enjoys from Fox News, AM talk radio with the rare exception of Air America and Pacifica, and huge amounts of money spent by Richard Mellon Scaife among others. The right-wing has outgunned the left for thirty years now and all the working of the refs by the right has only made media outlets so afraid of being called liberal that they bend over backwards to be evenhanded, even when the right is spreading complete and utter bullshit.

Let me guess who you'll call liberal--CNN, The New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, the major network newscasts, NPR, PBS, and so on and so on. All of it is crap. Plain unadulterated crap.

I would just like to mention that Jimmy Carter (or a different President) made some sort of law banning the President to attempt an assasination.

The wording may be off a bit, but could someone clarify? hmm?
It's not a law (only Congress can make laws). It's an executive order. You can read about executive orders here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order).

And of course it isn't an executive order banning the president from attempting assassinations (how many assassin presidents are there?!). It bans employees of the US government from political assassination.

Also, this executive order started with President Ford, though both Carter and Reagan had updated orders.

Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Are you always this hostile? I will answer you when you grow up and stop trolling.I'm only hostile when I'm treated with disdain--you've done it twice without any provocation, on this thread and on the other one. Don't like it? Tough. I'm a liberal who fights back.

Are you always this hostile? I will answer you when you grow up and stop trolling.I'm only hostile when I'm treated with disdain--you've done it twice without any provocation, on this thread and on the other one. Don't like it? Tough. I'm a liberal who fights back.

Roar. :twisted:

Are you always this hostile? I will answer you when you grow up and stop trolling.I'm only hostile when I'm treated with disdain--you've done it twice without any provocation, on this thread and on the other one. Don't like it? Tough. I'm a liberal who fights back.


I have never treated you with disdain, Please don't say that I do.

Incertonia: Listen to the stories presented to you by the liberal media more carefully. Plus, dont tell me you havent seen the billions (I know I am exaggerating here) of ads on TV denouncing Bush that are paid for by the Media Fund. By the way, I believe I stated this topic would not be discussed in my thread.Threads are open to hijacking, first of all--always have been and always will be.

Secondly, any money spent by the Media fund is easily offset by the free coverage the right-wing enjoys from Fox News, AM talk radio with the rare exception of Air America and Pacifica, and huge amounts of money spent by Richard Mellon Scaife among others. The right-wing has outgunned the left for thirty years now and all the working of the refs by the right has only made media outlets so afraid of being called liberal that they bend over backwards to be evenhanded, even when the right is spreading complete and utter bullshit.

Let me guess who you'll call liberal--CNN, The New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, the major network newscasts, NPR, PBS, and so on and so on. All of it is crap. Plain unadulterated crap.

I'm sorry, I believe I have stated twice already that this topic isnt to be discussed in this thread. I understand I am no mod, so therefore I have no powers, but I do expect the same decency that I would express to anyother member of NS. If you wish to talk about liberal media, start your own thread.

I have never treated you with disdain, Please don't say that I do.I consider being told to grow up and to deal with it to be disdain. I'm 35, the father of a teenage daughter, and a holder of two degrees and a fellowship at Stanford, so you may understand why being told to "deal with it" and to "grow up" rankles me.

I have never treated you with disdain, Please don't say that I do.I consider being told to grow up and to deal with it to be disdain. I'm 35, the father of a teenage daughter, and a holder of two degrees and a fellowship at Stanford, so you may understand why being told to "deal with it" and to "grow up" rankles me.


I told you to deal with in answer to you denying the Liberal media, and then told you to grow up after you attacked me for no good reason. I fight back when people attack me, Did you think I would just laydown and take your unjust attack against me?

Why do people always blame a 'liberal media'. If its so liberal, why did CNN (the most liberal of them all) run more pro-bush stories than pro-gore stories?

Oh, Fox News is not fair and balanced, its really really conservative.

I have never treated you with disdain, Please don't say that I do.I consider being told to grow up and to deal with it to be disdain. I'm 35, the father of a teenage daughter, and a holder of two degrees and a fellowship at Stanford, so you may understand why being told to "deal with it" and to "grow up" rankles me.


I told you to deal with in answer to you denying the Liberal media, and then told you to grow up after you attacked me for no good reason. I fight back when people attack me, Did you think I would just laydown and take your unjust attack against me?I'm willing to let bygones be bygones and start over if you are. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Why do people always blame a 'liberal media'. If its so liberal, why did CNN (the most liberal of them all) run more pro-bush stories than pro-gore stories?

Oh, Fox News is not fair and balanced, its really really conservative.


This thread has gotten to offtopic, the author asked for this to not be discussed here, Would you mind respecting that?

There are many things that one can call Bush and get no arruement from me. Weasel isn't one of them. It would seem that all of Bush's wrongdoings are plain to see and he doesn't ,to my knowledge, deny them. He defends his actions but doesn't deny them. Weasel, no.

I have never treated you with disdain, Please don't say that I do.I consider being told to grow up and to deal with it to be disdain. I'm 35, the father of a teenage daughter, and a holder of two degrees and a fellowship at Stanford, so you may understand why being told to "deal with it" and to "grow up" rankles me.


I told you to deal with in answer to you denying the Liberal media, and then told you to grow up after you attacked me for no good reason. I fight back when people attack me, Did you think I would just laydown and take your unjust attack against me?I'm willing to let bygones be bygones and start over if you are. Sorry for any misunderstanding.


I am always willing to, Don't let my name fool you. :wink: Sorry if I came across as hostile or rude, I didn't intend to be.

Perhaps you mean not to change people's views, but you put forth a lot of statements that could use addressing by those who did not favor the war in Iraq.

The people that are free is a lovely concept. We did in fact depose a horrible leader and a brutal regime. That is good, noble and pretty much unquestioned. However, the US has made many, many policy mistakes in the run up to and occupation after the war. This is what many take exception to.

These policy mistakes include the troop numbers used in the occupation forces, less men covering less ground, leaving many important suspected WMD sites, C&C complexes, administration buildings, and other crucial locations unsecured by US forces for days. This was due to policy decided by the Sec. of Defense. This lack of troops also resulted in the looting and rioting that followed the lifting of the Iraqi regime's control.

This problem was bad for US efforts to find WMD in the crucial early stages of the occupation, and allowed much evidence to be destroyed that would prove useful in inditing former Iraqi leaders. The rioting and looting was a massive blow to the PR campaign both at home and abroad. All of thisis entirely traceable to poor strategy and execution from the US civilain leadership.

Yes people die in war, but it is the job of the civilian leadership (the Sec. of Defense and the Commander in Chief included) to set policy that limits casualties to the lowest possible numbers. This has not been done. The desicion to remove tanks from urban areas was made by the civilian leadership hoping to reduce the "impact" of the occupation on the people of Iraq as well as show the US people that the war was over. The replacement of these tanks with lightly armored Humvees resulted in the deaths of over 100 US soldiers; this has been confirmed and traced directly to the removal of the tanks. The tanks are now being rotated back into Iraq thankfully, but those soldiers died because politics got in the way of military tactics. Here too, a failure of policy.

While many may doubt that Bush would invade Iraq for personal gain; your arguments to disprove such a theory are deeply flawed.

Even if Bush wanted Saddam assassinated, the former Iraqi leader was well known for his survival ability; he survived many attempts on his life before, including a US airstrike just hours after the current Iraq war had started. Saddam used body doubles, hidden bunkers and palaces, many tricks and techniques for just such an attempt. A failed assassination attempt would certainly be used by Saddam to embarass the US; and historically, the US has a poor record for assassination; Castro was targeted many times by US intelligence without success. No, attempting to assassinate Saddam would be much more likely to fail than succeed.

Actually, there are many, many reasons why Bush could find Iraq useful besides the stated intention given to the US public. Oil is actually a good possibility; not actually controlling the oil within the ground, but dictating which companies get to extract, refine and ship that oil would prove very luctritive, and evidence suggests that Paul Bremer (sp) may have paved the way for just that with his administration of Iraq. No-bid contracts abound within the reconstruction process, all will provide millions of dollars of profits for the companies, and few are without suspicious qualities. While there can be no actual confirmation of wrong doing at this time; many suspect even moderately in-depth auditing of the reconstruction contracts will find considerable graft.

Military bases manned by US personel could prove useful in the future as well, many have written off Saudi Aribia as too unstable within the Neocon think-tanks; more still ascribed to the rather foolish idea that a democractic Iraq will have a "dommino effect" on the rest of the Arab world. Setting up a new pro-US government in the middle of many troubled nations would provide a good base for operations in the surrounding areas regardless.

In the end, the personal vendetta argument does seem a little flat to most; regardless of that, many are convinced that the wrong policies are being implimented for the wrong reasons in Iraq. This conviction leads many to cry out against the very civilian leader who called for, organized and approved these policies; George Bush.

It would be nice if Bush supporters came up with some other scapegoat than the "liberal media." It's old and it's been disproven so many times it's not even funny.


It has already been proven that the US media is more Liberal than the American people are, deal with it.

Please cite your source for this liberal media, keep in mind that Fox news and many of the rags produced by washington think tanks are faint smoke screens for the lies spued forth by the Religious Reich(oh , I mean right)

I am well aware that almost EVERYONE on this site hates Bush. I however am a supporter of his. I am proud to say I am a conservitive, and while I do not support all of Bush's decisons, I do support the War in Iraq. All I can see is the positive. We have liberated an entire nation, we stopped a brutal dictator who was clearly violating UN orders. And we are fighting a war against the orginizations of terror and sleaze.

What I dont realize is why everyone shows Bush as a warmongering Bastard. The man is trying despretley to do what he has to do, but the lvery powerful liberal media makes him look like a jackass (thats a disscussion for another thread however). I also hear a lot of people saying that he just came up with excuses to go to war. Well I see it as this: If we hadn't gone to Iraq, these people wouldn't be free. The man (Sadaam) was told to get rid of his WMD, (which I believe are hidden in mosques right now, just think, you can't go in there, how are you gonna find em?) and he didnt. We did what we had to do. I realize civillians died, I realize soldiers died, and I feel sorrow for them and thier families, but thats war folks, people die.


I don't understand why people think Bush went to Iraq for personal gain. If he wanted to kill Sadaam, he could have hired a merc or sent in specialists to kill him. But he didnt. Plus, there really isnt a reason why Bush would want to go into Iraq besides what he stated. Oil? Well, its been about 2 years in Iraq...No Oil.

I understand by posting this I am basically throwing myself into the lions den. I don't expect you to change your views, only to try and enlighten you. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Not eveyone who speaks out against Bush hates him. Many of us are enraged with how he and his band of evil profiteers have hijacked the conservative movement in the nation. No one argues that Sadam was an heartless dictator, but N. Korea has a heartless dictator and with its nukes poses a greater threat to the US. Why Iraq and not North Korea? The answer is simple...North Korea does not provide a profit margin for his circle of contributors. Notice how many in Bush's cirlce have gained contracts and those still in the government have started lining up their jobs in the private sector with these companies.

I am well aware that almost EVERYONE on this site hates Bush. I however am a supporter of his. I am proud to say I am a conservitive, and while I do not support all of Bush's decisons, I do support the War in Iraq. All I can see is the positive. We have liberated an entire nation, we stopped a brutal dictator who was clearly violating UN orders. And we are fighting a war against the orginizations of terror and sleaze.

What I dont realize is why everyone shows Bush as a warmongering Bastard. The man is trying despretley to do what he has to do, but the lvery powerful liberal media makes him look like a jackass (thats a disscussion for another thread however). I also hear a lot of people saying that he just came up with excuses to go to war. Well I see it as this: If we hadn't gone to Iraq, these people wouldn't be free. The man (Sadaam) was told to get rid of his WMD, (which I believe are hidden in mosques right now, just think, you can't go in there, how are you gonna find em?) and he didnt. We did what we had to do. I realize civillians died, I realize soldiers died, and I feel sorrow for them and thier families, but thats war folks, people die.

Sure, easy for YOU to say that...easy for you to treat those people like cardboard...who gives a shit if people who don't mean anything to ME are killed? Who cares how much blood gets spilled as long as it not MY blood, or the blood of MY loved ones getting spilled?!?!

See, that is what pisses me off about you freaking hawks, and conservo-creeps! You're willing to pay whatever price in human life and blood as necessary to achieve your selfish commercial goals...as long as the lives and blood spent are not YOURS...or that of people YOU love and care about!

Ever hear the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath?

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the firelds the body's burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning thier brainwashed minds
Oh, Lord yeah

....

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that all to the poor!
Yeah.
Time will tell them they have power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their Judgement Day comes, yeah.

....

Now in darkness world stops turning
Day of judgement God is calling
On their knees the War Pigs crawling
Begging mercies for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh, Lord yeah!


I don't understand why people think Bush went to Iraq for personal gain. If he wanted to kill Sadaam, he could have hired a merc or sent in specialists to kill him. But he didnt. Plus, there really isnt a reason why Bush would want to go into Iraq besides what he stated. Oil? Well, its been about 2 years in Iraq...No Oil.

First it is in direct contradiction to U.S. Code to carry out an assassination of any nation's leader. So, legally, Bush could not do this what you suggest, hiring a merc or sending in a few speacialists. And, as far as no oil...well, there would be, but the insurgents keep sabotaging the oil lines. And Halliburton, Cheney's former company...in which he still has financial interest, I might add, is making Iraq into a quite lucrative dal...at the expense of the American taxpayer...as well as the American soldier, and their families...He's trading our tax dollars and the lives and blood of Americans, for lucrative contracts for his buddies...and himself! He is raping America, and we are NOT going to tolearte the media refusing to report what is REALLY going on anymore. God-damned liberal media, anyway...Where the PHUCK is the "liberal media?" I don't see any? All I see is the media refusing to grill, and ask the tough questions of this Administration...after I watched them incessantly hound Clinton for eight goddam years over a few hummers he got in the Oval Office. WTF??


I understand by posting this I am basically throwing myself into the lions den. I don't expect you to change your views, only to try and enlighten you. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

And I only hope to enlighten YOU...and to see the scales drop from your eyes. You are brainwashed by conservo-creeps. no one but a brainwashed person could ever support the monsters that make up the modern-day GOP.

I am well aware that almost EVERYONE on this site hates Bush. I however am a supporter of his. I am proud to say I am a conservitive, and while I do not support all of Bush's decisons, I do support the War in Iraq. All I can see is the positive. We have liberated an entire nation, we stopped a brutal dictator who was clearly violating UN orders. And we are fighting a war against the orginizations of terror and sleaze.

What I dont realize is why everyone shows Bush as a warmongering Bastard. The man is trying despretley to do what he has to do, but the lvery powerful liberal media makes him look like a jackass (thats a disscussion for another thread however). I also hear a lot of people saying that he just came up with excuses to go to war. Well I see it as this: If we hadn't gone to Iraq, these people wouldn't be free. The man (Sadaam) was told to get rid of his WMD, (which I believe are hidden in mosques right now, just think, you can't go in there, how are you gonna find em?) and he didnt. We did what we had to do. I realize civillians died, I realize soldiers died, and I feel sorrow for them and thier families, but thats war folks, people die.

Sure, easy for YOU to say that...easy for you to treat those people like cardboard...who gives a shit if people who don't mean anything to ME are killed? Who cares how much blood gets spilled as long as it not MY blood, or the blood of MY loved ones getting spilled?!?!

See, that is what pisses me off about you freaking hawks, and conservo-creeps! You're willing to pay whatever price in human life and blood as necessary to achieve your selfish commercial goals...as long as the lives and blood spent are not YOURS...or that of people YOU love and care about!

Ever hear the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath?

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the firelds the body's burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning thier brainwashed minds
Oh, Lord yeah

....

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that all to the poor!
Yeah.
Time will tell them they have power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their Judgement Day comes, yeah.

....

Now in darkness world stops turning
Day of judgement God is calling
On their knees the War Pigs crawling
Begging mercies for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh, Lord yeah!


I don't understand why people think Bush went to Iraq for personal gain. If he wanted to kill Sadaam, he could have hired a merc or sent in specialists to kill him. But he didnt. Plus, there really isnt a reason why Bush would want to go into Iraq besides what he stated. Oil? Well, its been about 2 years in Iraq...No Oil.

First it is in direct contradiction to U.S. Code to carry out an assassination of any nation's leader. So, legally, Bush could not do this what you suggest, hiring a merc or sending in a few speacialists. And, as far as no oil...well, there would be, but the insurgents keep sabotaging the oil lines. And Halliburton, Cheney's former company...in which he still has financial interest, I might add, is making Iraq into a quite lucrative dal...at the expense of the American taxpayer...as well as the American soldier, and their families...He's trading our tax dollars and the lives and blood of Americans, for lucrative contracts for his buddies...and himself! He is raping America, and we are NOT going to tolearte the media refusing to report what is REALLY going on anymore. God-damned liberal media, anyway...Where the PHUCK is the "liberal media?" I don't see any? All I see is the media refusing to grill, and ask the tough questions of this Administration...after I watched them incessantly hound Clinton for eight goddam years over a few hummers he got in the Oval Office. WTF??


I understand by posting this I am basically throwing myself into the lions den. I don't expect you to change your views, only to try and enlighten you. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

And I only hope to enlighten YOU...and to see the scales drop from your eyes. You are brainwashed by conservo-creeps. no one but a brainwashed person could ever support the monsters that make up the modern-day GOP.

In closing, let me say I think that the strategy of regime change is the right strategy to be taking...but we are taking it in the wrong place. WE NEED PHUCKING REGIME CHANGE RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

JOHN KERRY, 2004 - GET BUSH THE PHUCK OUT OF OUR HOUSE!!!