NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Begins Five-Day Push to Defend Iraq War (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050820102209990003)
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy,'' the president said in the recorded broadcast.
How is this quagmire making Americans safer? Sure didn't help the British when they got the shit bombed out of them. Not to mention due to Shrub's obcession with avenging Daddy's honor, Afghanistan has been fucking neglected to where the Taliban are making a real comeback.

And what does Il Duh-ce do as part of his "arguments" for the war?
As he has before when he has been challenged, Bush invoked the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in his radio address.

"On that day, we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors no longer protect us from those who wish to harm our people,'' he said. "And since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy.''
Yep.

Wave his arms all spooky-like and conjure up The Ghosts of 9-11 Past.

The rest of the world knows he wore out that rallying point and wasted it on avenging Daddy's honor:

In the Democratic address, [Georgia Senator Max] Cleland also brought up the Sept. 11 attacks - to remind Americans that al-Qaida terror group leader Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured.

I won't be surprised if this does end up like Vietnam: The moment the Bushevik kids start getting sent to Iraq, they'll all start bitching and whining about "bringing our troops home."

It's there--Bush's approval rating on Iraq is at 34% according to the latest poll I've seen. That's LBJ in 1968 levels, right before he decided not to run again.

How is this quagmire making Americans safer? Sure didn't help the British when they got the shit bombed out of them. Not to mention due to Shrub's obcession with avenging Daddy's honor, Afghanistan has been fucking neglected to where the Taliban are making a real comeback.Question is, would anything have happened to America if Iraq hadn't been attacked? I personally doubt it. So, Bush has technically made Americans less safe since he stationed plenty of them in a place where they are succeptible to death (whether or not they are willing to do so, I have a problem with this).
And what does Il Duh-ce do as part of his "arguments" for the war?Please... El Presidente Arbusto sounds a bit funnier and would be slightly more accurate, wouldn't you think? ;)
The rest of the world knows he wore out that rallying point and wasted it on avenging Daddy's honor:I don't think he wanted to defend his honor, I think he wanted to humiliate him. His dad didn't expect him to succeed at all, from what I've gleaned. Maybe GWB is trying to prove him wrong...
I won't be surprised if this does end up like Vietnam: The moment the Bushevik kids start getting sent to Iraq, they'll all start bitching and whining about "bringing our troops home."I would. The situation is completely different. I don't know what you mean by Bushevik, but if you mean Republicans that wholeheartedly support the war, then you will find a lot of those in the military.

Please... El Presidente Arbusto sounds a bit funnier and would be slightly more accurate, wouldn't you think? ;)

I prefer King George the Lesser, personally.

Homer Simpson Says: And if you get kicked out of that, it's straight into the Army for you - where you'll be sent off to America's next quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge!

I don't know what you mean by Bushevik, but if you mean Republicans that wholeheartedly support the war, then you will find a lot of those in the military.

I don't mean Republicans in general. By "Bushevik," I'm talking about the blind NeoCon sheep who wholeheartedly support Bush's moves without questioning the motives, find nothing too low when it comes to demonizing and trying to discredit his critics, and generally excuse and apologize for every one of his major and minor cockups.

Homer Simpson Says: And if you get kicked out of that, it's straight into the Army for you - where you'll be sent off to America's next quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge!

One of my all time favorite Simpsons quote.

Just as I thought: People demand Bush respond to the protestors, and when he does, they reject it. Oh well, you can't please every wacko.

Just as I thought: People demand Bush respond to the protestors, and when he does, they reject it. Oh well, you can't please every wacko.


lol - as if anyone said they would accept Bush's response.

Just as I thought: People demand Bush respond to the protestors, and when he does, they reject it. Oh well, you can't please every wacko.

Actually, I call it hypocracy personally.

Just as I thought: People demand Bush respond to the protestors, and when he does, they reject it. Oh well, you can't please every wacko.

Yeah, Bush generally sticks to pleasing wackos who shotgun protestors and runs over crosses on his behalf. Not to mention wackos who have money to contribute and are his closest buds.

:rolleyes:

Actually, I call it hypocracy personally.

What was hypocritical of people demanding Bush defend his position and then rejecting his answer? Don't you ever ask peopleto explain thier positions and reject their reasons? I'm pretty sure I've seen you do it countless times on this very message board. Does that make you a hypocrite? I would say no personally.

Actually, I call it hypocracy personally.

"Hypocrisy" against a blatant liar? Wow... there's injustice for you.

:rolleyes:

I don't mean Republicans in general. By "Bushevik," I'm talking about the blind NeoCon sheep who wholeheartedly support Bush's moves without questioning the motives, find nothing too low when it comes to demonizing and trying to discredit his critics, and generally excuse and apologize for every one of his major and minor cockups.
When I think of Bushevik, I think of generally (and this is meant to cast a very wide net into which no doubt there will be a number of exceptions) the richer Republicans who support the war but who actively encourage their kids to avoid military service. I'd also include any group of young, military age republicans who support the war and who argue that they're doing important work for the country here instead of signing up. I figure, if you support the war and you're able to serve and decide not to, you're a damn coward who ought to be bitch-slapped publicly.

"Hypocrisy" against a blatant liar? Wow... there's injustice for you.

:rolleyes:



I challenge you to prove, yea, even beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bush intentionally lied to the public. If you can do that, then I'm sure the rabid Democrats, such as Dean, who want him impeached can as well ;)

Bush isn't winning any Converts with that "OHNOZ REMBR 911!! PHER THE EVIL!" If it's 9/11 WHY THE HECK ARE WE NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO AFGANISTAN?


I don't mean Republicans in general. By "Bushevik," I'm talking about the blind NeoCon sheep who wholeheartedly support Bush's moves without questioning the motives, find nothing too low when it comes to demonizing and trying to discredit his critics, and generally excuse and apologize for every one of his major and minor cockups.

I so freaking hate those people. HATE THEM HATE THEM!! Those people who can't go a conversation without saying 'god' who says have a blessed day instead of have a good day. And my state is full of the idiots.

When I think of Bushevik, I think of generally (and this is meant to cast a very wide net into which no doubt there will be a number of exceptions) the richer Republicans who support the war but who actively encourage their kids to avoid military service. I'd also include any group of young, military age republicans who support the war and who argue that they're doing important work for the country here instead of signing up. I figure, if you support the war and you're able to serve and decide not to, you're a damn coward who ought to be bitch-slapped publicly.



Umm, no. You can't demand that someone join the military just because they believe a war is morally just. Following that logic, I can demand you join the police force and prevent crime. Seems like a strategy to kill off political opponents, if you ask me :rolleyes:

Bush isn't winning any Converts with that "OHNOZ REMBR 911!! PHER THE EVIL!" If it's 9/11 WHY THE HECK ARE WE NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO AFGANISTAN?




I so freaking hate those people. HATE THEM HATE THEM!! Those people who can't go a conversation without saying 'god' who says have a blessed day instead of have a good day. And my state is full of the idiots.



Despite your foolishness, God loves you. Have a blessed day ;)

I've said it before and I'lls ay it again:

I believe we should have invaded Iraq because even though there were no WMD's and no ties to terrorism, G. Bush and the PNAC pack had the foreskin... er sorry... forsight to realise that it would be where all the terrorists would try to make a last stand, and it's better if Iraqis are the victims of terror attacks than Americans because Iraqis are not as important to Gods green earth as Americans are. Although I want the Iraqis to be free of Saddams rape and torture (even though I don't care about all the rape and torture on American soil notorious to US prisons), I could care less if they are suffering from the highest rate of birth defects in the world due to the US littering the country with depleted uranium. So what that the country is in havok and innocent people are dying everyday, at least Saddam isn't the one causing it. So what if I don't have to live thru the real terror of war every day of my life with no water or electricity, I think its just and right to send our friends and family off to die for this cause. Amen.

"Hypocrisy" against a blatant liar? Wow... there's injustice for you.

:rolleyes:

How did Bush lie? As far as I know, he's rectifying the things that was wrong with the Intelligence that he used to go into Iraq. Faulty intelligence is all that it was. Bush didn't intentionally lie so I have to ask, what did he intentionally lie about?

Despite your foolishness, God loves you. Have a blessed day ;)
*stabs Neo Rogolia*

I've said it before and I'lls ay it again:

I believe we should have invaded Iraq because even though there were no WMD's and no ties to terrorism, G. Bush and the PNAC pack had the foreskin... er sorry... forsight to realise that it would be where all the terrorists would try to make a last stand, and it's better if Iraqis are the victims of terror attacks than Americans because Iraqis are not as important to Gods green earth as Americans are. Although I want the Iraqis to be free of Saddams rape and torture (even though I don't care about all the rape and torture on American soil notorious to US prisons), I could care less if they are suffering from the highest rate of birth defects in the world due to the US littering the country with depleted uranium. So what that the country is in havok and innocent people are dying everyday, at least Saddam isn't the one causing it. So what if I don't have to live thru the real terror of war every day of my life with no water or electricity, I think its just and right to send our friends and family off to die for this cause. Amen.



You should go into the manufacturing business, since you're so apt at constructing strawmen.

Umm, no. You can't demand that someone join the military just because they believe a war is morally just. Following that logic, I can demand you join the police force and prevent crime. Seems like a strategy to kill off political opponents, if you ask me :rolleyes:

It's called putting your money where your mouth is. Busheviks for the most part if not all are fair-weather friends when it comes to the war. They push and push and push for it, but if you ask them to contribute their fair share to the effort, they suddenly flake and cop out with some lame excuse or deferment.

You don't rap about living in the ghetto when you're an Ivy-Leager (*coughcoughVanillaIcecoughcough*) and you don't encourage the war when you're too chicken shit to make a substantial contribution yourself.

You should go into the manufacturing business, since you're so apt at constructing strawmen.


What? Can't you see that I am on your side? It's to free the iraqi people. Are you happy about the job we are doing over there?

What was hypocritical of people demanding Bush defend his position and then rejecting his answer?

They asked for his explanation, he gave it and then they make excuses. That's hypocracy.

Don't you ever ask peopleto explain thier positions and reject their reasons?

I don't reject what other people say. I listen to them and if they have a valid position, I accept it. Everyone will have different opinions but to reject someone out of hand, is hypocritical when they asked for an explaination in the first place.

I'm pretty sure I've seen you do it countless times on this very message board. Does that make you a hypocrite? I would say no personally.

Everyone is hypocritical in one form or another. However, when someone asks for my position, I give it. I don't reject other people's positions unless their positions is based on bad information.

How did Bush lie? As far as I know, he's rectifying the things that was wrong with the Intelligence that he used to go into Iraq. Faulty intelligence is all that it was. Bush didn't intentionally lie so I have to ask, what did he intentionally lie about?

Oh yes. The old "Bush didn't know it was a lie" apology. If it was faulty intelligence, why the fuck did he reward George Tenet for that bullshit story with the Medal of Freedom and let him keep it even after the WMD stories turned out to be bullshit?

Bush may not be proven to be a liar, but that there says he's guilty of Willful Ignorance at the very least. Then again you also think the United Nations is irrelevant when they're not used to rubber stamp Bush's cowboy expeditions into the Middle East either so I get the feeling you won't see the point here.

:rolleyes:

I challenge you to prove, yea, even beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bush intentionally lied to the public. If you can do that, then I'm sure the rabid Democrats, such as Dean, who want him impeached can as well ;)

They can't prove it because we already know that the Intelligence was faulty. Even Bush was upset when the intel turned out to be faulty.

It's called putting your money where your mouth is. Busheviks for the most part if not all are fair-weather friends when it comes to the war. They push and push and push for it, but if you ask them to contribute their fair share to the effort, they suddenly flake and cop out with some lame excuse or deferment.

You don't rap about living in the ghetto when you're an Ivy-Leager (*coughcoughVanillaIcecoughcough*) and you don't encourage the war when you're too chicken shit to make a substantial contribution yourself.


Ok, then I demand you go up to Crawford and begin protesting the war, like a good little dissenter.

Umm, no. You can't demand that someone join the military just because they believe a war is morally just. Following that logic, I can demand you join the police force and prevent crime. Seems like a strategy to kill off political opponents, if you ask me :rolleyes:
I'm not demanding anything--I'm simply stating what I believe support of this damned war entails. If you're going to bleat and screech that this war is necessary, then you have a moral obligation, if you are able to serve, to do so. What's the old saying? Don't send another to do a job you refuse to do yourself.

The only reason I feel this way about it is because this was a completely voluntary war. It was unnecessary, there was deep opposition to it from the planning stages, and we were lied to about the threat that Iraq posed. We know all this--there is no controversy about this other than from those, like you, who refuse to look at the mountains of evidence to the contrary. So for those like you who still argue that this is a just war, that this is a necessary war, all I can say is, if you believe in it so much, go fight in it. I don't want any part of it, and if I had my way about it, I'd tell every soldier currently in Iraq that if they feel like they've been lied to, they can come home. We've got a bunch of chickenhawks we can send over in their place.

They asked for his explanation, he gave it and then they make excuses. That's hypocracy.



I don't reject what other people say. I listen to them and if they have a valid position, I accept it. Everyone will have different opinions but to reject someone out of hand, is hypocritical when they asked for an explaination in the first place.



Everyone is hypocritical in one form or another. However, when someone asks for my position, I give it. I don't reject other people's positions unless their positions is based on bad information.


They make excuses? What excuses? They rejected what he had to say just as you do when you don't agree with someone. Thats not hypocrisy, maybe you are getting yoru definitions mixed up.

They can't prove it because we already know that the Intelligence was faulty. Even Bush was upset when the intel turned out to be faulty.
Yeah, so upset that he fired all the people responsible for it, right? Ooops--no. He gave them all medals or promotions.

Same shit, different day, Corny. Some things never change.

Ok, then I demand you go up to Crawford and begin protesting the war, like a good little dissenter.

Only if I get a written proof that you signed up for active duty in Iraq like a good Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

Note that I'm criticizing the Busheviks who shout the loudest about supporting the war?

Oh yes. The old "Bush didn't know it was a lie" apology. If it was faulty intelligence, why the fuck did he reward George Tenet for that bullshit story with the Medal of Freedom and let him keep it even after the WMD stories turned out to be bullshit?

Yea I was stunned with that too and I didn't agree with him getting that medal either. To me, it should be stripped from him. I would've too if I were president. However, I"m not.

Bush may not be proven to be a liar, but that there says he's guilty of Willful Ignorance at the very least.

If you had the same intel that Bush did, you would've done the same thing. Even Kerry said he would've gone in given the same intel that Bush had.

Then again you also think the United Nations is irrelevant when they're not used to rubber stamp Bush's cowboy expeditions into the Middle East either so I get the feeling you won't see the point here.

:rolleyes:

The reason I think that the UN is irrelevent is that they don't back up their resolutions. Everyone knows that UN Resolutions are worthless if the items stated in them aren't enforced. Did you know that the UN could be disbanded right now?

They make excuses? What excuses? They rejected what he had to say just as you do when you don't agree with someone. Thats not hypocrisy, maybe you are getting yoru definitions mixed up.

I based my position on the facts that I have at hand. Those that have bad info and makes there stand on that info, I attack. I don't attack someone that has a position opposite mine based on facts.

Yeah, so upset that he fired all the people responsible for it, right? Ooops--no. He gave them all medals or promotions.

Same shit, different day, Corny. Some things never change.

Then why was Tenet forced into Retirement? Why was the Intel community shaken up after the intel was proven to be faulty?

I based my position on the facts that I have at hand. Those that have bad info and makes there stand on that info, I attack. I don't attack someone that has a position opposite mine based on facts.


I think Domici said it nicely

Domici:

Anything that is more critical of Republicans than Democrats is demonstrably biased. Anything biased is not a valid source of information.
All available evidence indicates that Bush and the Neocons went to war for personal gain at the cost of American lives.. Therefore, reality is biased against Republicans and can safely be ignored.

I based my position on the facts that I have at hand. Those that have bad info and makes there stand on that info, I attack. I don't attack someone that has a position opposite mine based on facts.

B.S. - big time B.S. - I've seen you reject documented facts that came from people in Iraq and offer second-hand unverifiable information from your father in return as 'fact'. You accept anythign Bush has to say - yet you say it is called thinking for yourself and questioning everything. Perhaps I am responding to the real hypocrite here.

I challenge you to prove, yea, even beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bush intentionally lied to the public. If you can do that, then I'm sure the rabid Democrats, such as Dean, who want him impeached can as well ;)Bold parts added.
Do I get to saw open his head to try? :p

Bold parts added.
Do I get to saw open his head to try? :p



Hmm, I guess my statement did add an unnecessary adverb. "Intentionally lied" is kind of like "good goodness." :D

Then why was Tenet forced into Retirement? Why was the Intel community shaken up after the intel was proven to be faulty?
Ah, how different our recollections are. First of all, when Tenet retired, Bush and everyone else in the administration was asked if this was a forced retirement or if Tenet was really being canned and they all came up with the same answer--No, Tenet has done great service for his country, wants more time with his family, blah blah blah. Now remember--Bush was taking a shitload of heat for this, and the easiest way to placate those from his side who were giving him shit would have been to blame it on the leftover Clinton guy--Tenet. Why didn't he fire Tenet, call him an incompetent, etc? Probably because he knew Tenet could sink him if he made Tenet the fall guy for everything.

Hmm, I guess my statement did add an unnecessary adverb. "Intentionally lied" is kind of like "good goodness." :DNo,no, I caught on that you hinted at that, while what he said was untrue, he probably didn't know better. (I'd disagree, given the testemonials I've seen, but that's not the issue) I wanted to know if I can saw open his head to prove that his brain showed signs of intentional defeat in the political section. :D

B.S. - big time B.S. - I've seen you reject documented facts that came from people in Iraq and offer second-hand unverifiable information from your father in return as 'fact'.

Unverified? Bull. The information is straight from those that have the knowledge that I was using. Sorry if it disagreed with you.

You accept anythign Bush has to say - yet you say it is called thinking for yourself and questioning everything. Perhaps I am responding to the real hypocrite here.

No I don't accept every Bush says. I don't like how he's handling Immigration and that the minutemen down there have the right Idea.

No,no, I caught on that you hinted at that, while what he said was untrue, he probably didn't know better. (I'd disagree, given the testemonials I've seen, but that's not the issue) I wanted to know if I can saw open his head to prove that his brain showed signs of intentional defeat in the political section. :D


You'll have to ask him that :D

Unverified? Bull. The information is straight from those that have the knowledge that I was using. Sorry if it disagreed with you.
You know that we've called the observances of US soldiers as controversial (not false, mind you) since they could be considered "biased", and therefore well worth investigating on your own...

You'll have to ask him that :DMeh, he might decline, so I'm asking you. If you say no, you mightn't want to use arguements that you consider unprovable... ;)
That is, of course, unless you're not interested in "debating"...

You know that we've called the observances of US soldiers as controversial (not false, mind you) since they could be considered "biased", and therefore well worth investigating on your own...

Ok, I'll grant you that but everything should be taken as opinion unless proven otherwise.

I challenge you to prove, yea, even beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bush intentionally lied to the public. If you can do that, then I'm sure the rabid Democrats, such as Dean, who want him impeached can as well ;)

It's a shame Dean's carrier ended like it did. I never even saw what the deal was with people freaking out over a scream. I'm not a Dean supporter, but it says a lot about us Americans when we care about that kind of shit. Bush himself hasn't exactly been eloquent himself, as needless to say he was a Skull and Bones member, and openly admitted it...

But let's not blame Bush for everything- he is by far too stupid to concoct everything himself. I strongly suggest everyone watch the documentary Bush's Brain. It may sound like an insult against him, but its really about the people actually in power and pulling his strings. His cabinet, etc.

Bush makes Nixon look honest by comparison of what his staff from campaigns did to his runningmates. Makes Watergate insignificant, but no one seems to care. They're too busy seeking out bad-sounding screams and photos from public personalities.

Fuck you, you superficial degenerates.
(not anyone on this forum)

Ok, I'll grant you that but everything should be taken as opinion unless proven otherwise.I suppose so. I personally try to rely on people who's job it is to gather information, such as Reuters, or respectable news programs, such as those on the German public channels, for my news, spiced with a bit of personal observation from people that are involved in what I want to hear about. It's always difficult to get a good and objective view on what happened. It means that you have to look very hard for it.

Bush Begins Five-Day Push to Defend Iraq War (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050820102209990003)Let the brainwashing of feeble minded Americans begin... :rolleyes:

Yeah, Bush generally sticks to pleasing wackos who shotgun protestors and runs over crosses on his behalf. Not to mention wackos who have money to contribute and are his closest buds.

:rolleyes:

A protestor was shotgunned? When? Where?

Responding:

It may have been faulty intelligence that sent us to Iraq, we will never know for sure if what was said was jiggled or not, though it does look like many of the intelligence was cherry picked to back up conclusions that this administration wanted.

But, the war in Iraq has not made us safer. Madrid and London happened after the war started. In the US, even this administration admits it is just a matter of time.

So we were not going to be invaed by the Iraqi army. We would not be fighting them in the streets. And Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 (as has been stated repeatedly, BY President Bush himself).

Since fighting has increased, WMDs have proven to be desert mist, and at last news report, it doesn't seem as if the current Iraqi goverment will get their work done on time, possibly triggering the disolvement of the goverment, maybe civil war, oh, and Bin Laden is STILL running around somewhere, someone remind me why were fighting this one again?

And why it is justified in terms of American, alied, Iraqi lives and costs?