NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you start accusing me, know that I'm a communist, and I bare a hatred towards America. But know that I also respect leadership, no matter whom it may be from. Why do people truly hate Bush? Is it because of the leadership? The semi-imperialism of America? It's cockiness? None of these are solely from Bush.

Sure, Bush may have attacked Iraq, lying about WMD's, but how would you get the populace to move forwards against a strong public oppression? Even if that was not his content, even if it was for oil, he still did more good than damage. It was not a burden to the American population at a whole, and at some times, increased profit. That's what war does; even a war as one sided as this. Secondly, there's also the fact of the EU, but they've always hated America, being the independant son, the closest European relative to North America.

He has worked slowly at Hurricane Katrina, and it's noted that it was not entirely his fault, but the fault of the inadequacy of the system. People unable to respond correctly, or underestimating the threat. There's also the world wide democracy and Americanism he's attempting to invoke, which truly is completely understandable. Besides, Britain's has done it, and their means are much more aggressive, so why do people like them? His military bases, as odd and unwanted as they may be, still provide some extra means of aid for allied nations. Democracy is free speech. You are using democracy's advantages right now by talking fairly freely about your mind, complaining and talking off. People take things for granted, and they take his leadership for granted.

If you ran things, it's most likely you would do things that are similiar, if not worst.

This thread is serious. I will not tolerate any nonsense. But I'm not a mod, so I can't do anything about it. But still, no nonsense.

Here is my question: Why do people truly hate Bush? Is it a societal thing?

Well, I hate Bush because he is the one directly responsible for a lot of America's actions. I don't hate the country or the people, since I happen to be from that country (among others) and the people are some of the friendliest on earth.

Well the President is the main administrator of the government, but that doesn't mean that everything America does is because of him.

Well, I neither hate Bush nor the US and I strongly disagree with your notion that the "EU hates Bush" even though there is a certain amount of anti-US sentiment here.

Being critical of something does not equal hate.

I dislike Bush because he doesn't care for the environment, because he lies to the public about WMD and gets away with it, because he starts a preemptive war, because of Guantanamo, because of his "you're either with us or against us", because he promotes ID, because of Halliburton, etc.

There are certainly more things, but I can't think of any at the moment.

EDIT: I've just seen, that your question was "why do people hate Bush" not "why do you hate Bush". I may post about that later.

Let me count the ways, or rather, let me describe the evolution from dislike to hatred.

I didn't like the way he ran his 2000 campaign, or the pass the press gave him--the pass wasn't his fault, mind you; he just used it to great advantage. And when the Florida recount was going on, I really didn't like the hypocrisy from his camp, talking like he wanted a recount when in the background, his camp was doing everything possible to stop it. That left a bad taste in my mouth, but I didn't hate him yet.

2001 rolls along, Bush is doing poorly in the polls, the economy isn't doing so hot, and I'm thinking he's looking like his daddy, although without the good side, no biggie. Then the September 11 attacks, and the fake bravado comes out. The tough talk. The swagger. And the foreboding sense that our response was going to go badly from the second he said "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

From there, it quickly went downhill. I never had any faith that we'd do the job in Afghanistan, and no surprises, we haven't, or rather, we've done it half-ass. But I saw Iraq coming well before there were any major rumblings about it in the press, and I knew it was bullshit, and that was the first step toward hatred of the Bush administration.

There's a lot more, but it's really just sauce for the goose--the shitty way he's handled the economy, the way he keeps asking for tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously raising spending (except for the needy--they get service cuts as well), the way they cast anyone who dares dissent with them as unpatriotic (linking dissent to a hatred of America or hatred of the troops).

There's another list: the Plame affair, the Swiftboating, the comparing of Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden, the fact that we stopped going after Bin Laden, the PATRIOT Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo (and wherever else we're torturing prisoners), the Hurricane Katrina "Brownie you're doing a heckofa job" response.

Most of all, though, it's that the combination of all of the above has vastly eroded what I think this country ought to stand for, and has weakened our ability to be as good as we can be. He's made us less American, and I can never forgive him for that.

I don't have any problem with Bush.

If by "people" you mean a bunch of whiny moonbats who still have their undies in a bunch because Al Gore couldn't steal the 2000 election, and that thier party put up an even bigger stiff in John Kerry last time around.... I really don't know.

People hate Bush because he is a lieing, conniving weasel. For an example, refer to the Bart Simpson defense thread.

1) First Bush didn't lie about WMD. He was given bad intelligence about WMD. There is a BIG difference. However, I don't expect people on here to really know the difference so I'll just leave it at that.

2) He was never given a free pass by the Press in 2000

3) He actually does care about the environment. However, it appears the Court doesn't since they have declared alot of the Clean Air Act unconstitutional.

4) As to this thread, I guess it is mostly societal. There are things about Bush I don't like. This goes to how he is handling the illegal immigration problem. However, he is strong on National Security and Defense and this is what I look for in a leader.

Please see the "Bart Simpson Defense" thread. Then tell me if you can truly stomach this puppet and his masters.

Please state your reasons why people truly hate Bush and stop referring to another thread please.

1) First Bush didn't lie about WMD. He was given bad intelligence about WMD. There is a BIG difference. However, I don't expect people on here to really know the difference so I'll just leave it at that.Yes, because Bush had absolutely no interest in going after Iraq except to protect the American people. :rolleyes:
2) He was never given a free pass by the Press in 2000It is quite likely that he would not have become president if Fox hadn't started claiming he was President before Florida was finished counting.
3) He actually does care about the environment. However, it appears the Court doesn't since they have declared alot of the Clean Air Act unconstitutional.So just because of one Clean Air Act, Bush becomes environmentally friendly? The bar is a bit higher than that.

When bush was "elected" with all that florida mess, people in Europe had a little distrust over him, but since it was an american president, no one cared much. Sure, we knew he was a religious zealot, we knew he was a unilateralist, but hell, he was elected. He made lots of funny faces and we were happy to call him a chimpanze, but not much about it.

Then he refused to push the signature of the kyoto protocol. Not very good, and considering that the US is the largest polluter on earth, and he was refusing to help in a common goal of the International Community, and one that Europeans treasure dearly (the enviromnent), we started to get irked and irritated at him.

Then 9/11 struck. Lots of sadness blablabla, let's get Bin laden, and stuff. For the first time in its History, NATO offered itself to protect a member state that had been attacked... and the US refused. Okay, no biggy, there was still a big support for the US to go after afghanistan.. and then, he came with all that Iraq and WMD bullshit. That is more than enough to fill a page, so i'm not going to put it here.

SO whe his he hated? Well, i really don't think hatred is the right word... I despise him. Very badly. For being a disrespectufl liar and a scoundrel, that cares for nothing except.. well, what does he care for?

Yes, because Bush had absolutely no interest in going after Iraq except to protect the American people. :rolleyes:

Oh brother. Talk about being naive.

It is quite likely that he would not have become president if Fox hadn't started claiming he was President before Florida was finished counting.

Correct my memory but who called Florida before ALL THE POLLS CLOSED in the State? ABC, CBS, CNN, and ABC. Fox was the last to call it and the only reason they did was because the other networks did.

...

SO whe his he hated? Well, i really don't think hatred is the right word... I despise him. Very badly. For being a disrespectufl liar and a scoundrel, that cares for nothing except.. well, what does he care for?

It starts with an "H" and rhymes with "Halliburton". ;)

Then he refused to push the signature of the kyoto protocol. Not very good, and considering that the US is the largest polluter on earth, and he was refusing to help in a common goal of the International Community, and one that Europeans treasure dearly (the enviromnent), we started to get irked and irritated at him.

Lets clear up a misconception here shall we? Since Europe is blind to the facts about Kyoto (among other things) it wasn't going to do the environment any good whatsoever. Also, it was Bill Clintion that signed Kyoto but never submitted it to the Senate. Why? Because the Senators, nearly to a person, was going to vote it down. Prior to the US putting their signature on it, the Senate voted 95-0 with 5 not voting a resolution to make sure it was never brought to the Senate.

Then 9/11 struck. Lots of sadness blablabla, let's get Bin laden, and stuff. For the first time in its History, NATO offered itself to protect a member state that had been attacked... and the US refused.

We did? Last I heard, NATO invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Nothing about the US turning it down since we are A PART of NATO.

Okay, no biggy, there was still a big support for the US to go after afghanistan.. and then, he came with all that Iraq and WMD bullshit. That is more than enough to fill a page, so i'm not going to put it here.

I thank you since we've already established it was bad intel. No need to go through it again.

Lets clear up a misconception here shall we? Since Europe is blind to the facts about Kyoto (among other things) it wasn't going to do the environment any good whatsoever. Also, it was Bill Clintion that signed Kyoto but never submitted it to the Senate. Why? Because the Senators, nearly to a person, was going to vote it down. Prior to the US putting their signature on it, the Senate voted 95-0 with 5 not voting a resolution to make sure it was never brought to the Senate.

Yeah, but the thing is that Kyoto is better than no Kyoto. Do you think the US would sign a treatment that is harsher than the Kyoto Protocol?

Yeah, but the thing is that Kyoto is better than no Kyoto. Do you think the US would sign a treatment that is harsher than the Kyoto Protocol?

Would you tolerate 4 MILLION people out of work?

Besides that, it has been proven that it would do diddly to prevent climate change (even though it can't be stopped anyway).

I'm sorry but since it wasn't going to do a thing to help the environment, its worthless.

Now I"m off to my International Law Class.

1) First Bush didn't lie about WMD. He was given bad intelligence about WMD. There is a BIG difference. However, I don't expect people on here to really know the difference so I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html?pagewanted=1

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies.

So, according to the New York Times, there is a strong possibilty that the White House did know that the intelligence was bad before the Iraq invasion.

If you have to ask why Bush is held in disdain, then you'll probably never understand the reasons.

Before you start accusing me, know that I'm a communist, and I bare a hatred towards America. But know that I also respect leadership, no matter whom it may be from.

That's admirable, but only if the emperor is actually wearing clothes.

Why do people truly hate Bush? Is it because of the leadership? The semi-imperialism of America? It's cockiness? None of these are solely from Bush.

Semi-imperialism? This is hyper-imperialism with a side of reality-defying propaganda. Assuming that he can spread democracy in a part of the world that has never known anything like what the US considers democracy, and doing so by force? That's known as being dangerously full of shit and completely ignorant of history. Did anyone "give" the US our democracy? No, it took years of revolution from within and refinement through thoughtful debate, legislation, judicial review and executive consideration.


Sure, Bush may have attacked Iraq,

May have?

lying about WMD's,

Isn't that a high crime in and of itself? Certainly it's worse than lying about sex (married men have been doing that since marriage began).

but how would you get the populace to move forwards against a strong public oppression? Even if that was not his content, even if it was for oil, he still did more good than damage. It was not a burden to the American population at a whole,

You get them to move forward by being unafraid to publish or air the truth. You call Fox's bluff and challenge them directly to show proof beyond the babble of talking heads like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Not a burden? Ask the parents of 2100 dead US soldiers. You don't think the sluicing of the economy toward the already laughably rich isn't a burden to those whose benfits, pensions, and healthcare are being slashed? Your naievete would be cute if it weren't alarming.

and at some times, increased profit. That's what war does; even a war as one sided as this.

So you're in favor of an unjustified war if it aids the economy. Frightening. Life is not about profit. That's the hypocrisy that stings the most -- this leader is an avowed Jesus-loving religious pillar, yet advocates policies that are decidedly un-Christ-like.

He has worked slowly at Hurricane Katrina, and it's noted that it was not entirely his fault, but the fault of the inadequacy of the system. People unable to respond correctly, or underestimating the threat.

Slowly? How about barely! You can bet your ass that had the vast majority of those huddled in the Superdome been White, FIVE DAYS wouldn't have passed by before help arrived.* People were unable to respond correctly because their agencies were underfunded! The US government has known for years that the levees in the New Orleans area were inadequate to the stress of a storm like Katrina, but they were never finished.

*Which reminds me -- the 2000 election was indeed stolen with the aid of Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and ChoicePoint/DBT. 57,700 ex-felons who had been re-enfranchised (allowed to vote again after serving their time & parole) were purged from the Florida voter rolls without any stated recourse for the voter. For those who DID realize that the burden was on them to re-register, the impediments placed in front of them were so Byzantine that many gave up in frustration. See Greg Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy for the full story.

There's also the world wide democracy and Americanism he's attempting to invoke, which truly is completely understandable.

It is?!? Would you care to explain or defend any of these blanket generalizations?

Besides, Britain's has done it, and their means are much more aggressive, so why do people like them?

Uh...forgive me for having learned a bit of history, but what the UK did wasn't spreading democracy, it was colonialism. Britain's meddling in the Middle East after WWI is one of the reasons that region is the way it is now -- for you to say with a straight face that "people like" Britain is naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

His military bases, as odd and unwanted as they may be, still provide some extra means of aid for allied nations. Democracy is free speech. You are using democracy's advantages right now by talking fairly freely about your mind, complaining and talking off. People take things for granted, and they take his leadership for granted.

"Odd and unwanted"? If a foreign power had a military base in your backyard featuring things like pollution or (in the case of bases like the fiercely opposed Okinawa) irresponsible inhabitants, would you consider that an oddity and shrug it off? I suggest further reading: Blowback by Chalmers Johnson.

I will not tolerate any nonsense.

Neither do I -- that's why I cannot support Bush.

Please state your reasons why people truly hate Bush and stop referring to another thread please.

Excuse me, but I'm not re-posting an entire thread in here if you can just click over to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452947

That story is appalling.

Please state your reasons why people truly hate Bush and stop referring to another thread please.
Because I only said it once in what was my only post in this thread after giving my reasons and refering to another thread for an example. Get with the program.

Would you tolerate 4 MILLION people out of work?

Besides that, it has been proven that it would do diddly to prevent climate change (even though it can't be stopped anyway).

I'm sorry but since it wasn't going to do a thing to help the environment, its worthless.

Now I"m off to my International Law Class.

I take this that you would support a more restrictive treaty? Or do you think it's already too late?

But I think we are hijacking this thread. After all it's "Why do people hate Bush?" and not "Are the people who hate Bush right?".

2) He was never given a free pass by the Press in 2000


Are you high? I've seen fewer softballs pitched at Rawlings* company picnics!

You are perfectly within your rights to believe what you want, but if your belief is founded upon willful ignorance, well, nobody's arguments will ever convince you and there's no sense in arguing.





*Rawlings makes baseballs and softballs...for those who were wondering.

Being a libertarian I hold some resentment against Bush. The war, his policies, etc.

However there is one good thing I can say about him, he has never lied to us, he has done everything in his power to do exactly what he said he would do even if it was a stupid idea. Determination or just being stubborn.

The 2002 Kyoto Accords were a terrible idea. A fine? Please, just advocate switching to flourescent lightbulbs and other low-power consuming lights and we'll meet it without firing millions. Don't pick up the kids with the Humvee from McD's 5 blocks away. Let them ride their bikes, unless they are too fat to?! And maybe we should all stop flushing the toilet twice when we take a dump. We'd meet the projected Kyoto Accord cuts. The real problem is the apathy, stupidity, and laziness of the American public.

But no matter how he was elected (If Gore had won his home state of TN there would have been no arguement, he would have won regardless of Florida) he is still my president and I'll hold him accountable for the manifold tragedies of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. He was slow, ineffective, easily distracted.

He promised to protect us from Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Yet he can't even protect us from a Biological weapon called: standing water.
I am ashamed of my government, though he has made a few good decisions. He has been one of our worst presidents. I don't hate him, I dislike his policies, but overall he's been true to the American people.

Would you tolerate 4 MILLION people out of work?

Besides that, it has been proven that it would do diddly to prevent climate change (even though it can't be stopped anyway).

I'm sorry but since it wasn't going to do a thing to help the environment, its worthless.

Now I"m off to my International Law Class.

Worthless, eh? Not going to do anything? Who decided that? I mean, I realize there's an entire branch of gov't researchers who will say such ridiculous things like "there's no such thing as global warming" for cash, but ignoring those money hungry "I'll say anything" type of people, is there anyone who really advocates that Kyoto is useless? I just fail to understand how cleaning the air is a BAD thing.

Anyway, on to why people hate Bush. And so far as I've heard, people hate Bush from coast to coast in Canada, maybe with some exception from Alberta (Not sure, but Harper's from there, and Harper would love to join the Bush club). My cousin Ali came in from Scotland, and hit BC first to visit her mom and a cousin there. She was warned that anti-Bush sentiment is SKY HIGH in this country, which she found odd because, "We don't really think about him at all back home."
But then, he's not killing their economy with illegal tarriffs. The issue of softwood lumber has been beaten to death, but so long as the US refuses the decisions of NAFTA, I'm going to call the Bush administration hypocrites and worse.
Or making crazy changes to the open border, requiring all people to have passports to enter the US, instead of the friendly "Hello, how are you border guard? I'm just going down for a couple days to shop." I've heard quite a few people say they're just not going to bother going to the US anymore because they're not paying for a passport to go down to a country that doesn't trust them or want them there.
My final idea for this post is how he's so stereotypically American. We always hear how there are Americans who don't know where Canada is, and know less than nothing about it. Bush is a prime example of this. Constantly forgetting about the aid we've given, as we try to help our usually good American neighbours. Telling us that we were either with him or against him (whereas we simply didn't agree with his intel reports that Iraq was an immenent threat, and needed to be invaded). He seems to think we're weak because we won't support his illegal war... and now he's had allies pull out because the people in other countries realize he's totally full of crap, and have gone so far as to elect new gov'ts that will pull them out.
Bush has no idea what's going on in the real world. His world is a fantasy cowboy adventure, where there's people to gun down with extreme prejudice. How can you NOT hate this man?

He promised to protect us from Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Yet he can't even protect us from a Biological weapon called: standing water.
I am ashamed of my government, though he has made a few good decisions. He has been one of our worst presidents. I don't hate him, I dislike his policies, but overall he's been true to the American people.

Repeating the same wrong idea over and over again will never make it right. Brainwashing the people and taking advantage of trajedy to push your own agenda isn't being truthful to anyone. He's in a position of power, so people naturally believe him (or want to) and he's done nothing but abuse that. "No one could have foreseen something like this" was his administration's stance on Katrina, when there was a paper trail years long saying the exact opposite. Just because he doesn't pay attention to anything other than the wars he starts doesn't mean no one ELSE has foreseen problems.
And even if you CAN somehow come up with some convoluted logic that says he's been totally open and honest with America, being the leader of a country involves more than just your own people, it involves the rest of the world. And Bush has done the absolutely worst job ever of attending to international relations.

And Bush has done the absolutely worst job ever of attending to international relations.

Really? I take it you are not a student of history.

Really? I take it you are not a student of history.

Obviously that was a touch of an overgeneralization due to how much he frustrates me. But saying, "X was worse than Bush" is not going to take away the fact that he's horrible.

Why do people truly hate Bush?

It is a mix of religious/cultural hate, of envy (if a cocaine addict can be president, why I cant?) and of being directly liable for genocide.

Sure, Bush may have attacked Iraq, lying about WMD's, but how would you get the populace to move forwards against a strong public oppression? Even if that was not his content, even if it was for oil, he still did more good than damage. It was not a burden to the American population at a whole, and at some times, increased profit. That's what war does; even a war as one sided as this. Secondly, there's also the fact of the EU, but they've always hated America, being the independant son, the closest European relative to North America.

First, why has a president "to get the populace to move forwards" nothing? Can you put a demonstration to your statement about that killing 25,000 people for free is "to do more good than damage"? And wars never give any profin, how many thousands of millions of dollars has the Senate spent?

The European Union has not "never hated America". It is since the Vietnam thing that some people started to think...


He has worked slowly at Hurricane Katrina, and it's noted that it was not entirely his fault, but the fault of the inadequacy of the system. People unable to respond correctly, or underestimating the threat.

And when Katrina left, what did he do? A travel in chopper.


There's also the world wide democracy and Americanism he's attempting to invoke, which truly is completely understandable.

What? First, it is a lie. Second, some people may not like an out-of-date system. Third, how can a communist find understandable -and justify- the inmediate opposite of his ideas? (this is, instauration of a global oil capitalist oligarchy)


Besides, Britain's has done it, and their means are much more aggressive, so why do people like them? His military bases, as odd and unwanted as they may be, still provide some extra means of aid for allied nations. Democracy is free speech. You are using democracy's advantages right now by talking fairly freely about your mind, complaining and talking off. People take things for granted, and they take his leadership for granted.

Truly: have you ever heard a non-british person (and not conservative, of course) any voice about "I like the way Blair rules" or something similar? I haven't.

And I think that if the nazi generals were judged after their war, Bush, Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi should run the same luck.

Being a libertarian I hold some resentment against Bush. The war, his policies, etc.

However there is one good thing I can say about him, he has never lied to us, he has done everything in his power to do exactly what he said he would do even if it was a stupid idea. Determination or just being stubborn.

The 2002 Kyoto Accords were a terrible idea. A fine? Please, just advocate switching to flourescent lightbulbs and other low-power consuming lights and we'll meet it without firing millions. Don't pick up the kids with the Humvee from McD's 5 blocks away. Let them ride their bikes, unless they are too fat to?! And maybe we should all stop flushing the toilet twice when we take a dump. We'd meet the projected Kyoto Accord cuts. The real problem is the apathy, stupidity, and laziness of the American public.

But no matter how he was elected (If Gore had won his home state of TN there would have been no arguement, he would have won regardless of Florida) he is still my president and I'll hold him accountable for the manifold tragedies of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. He was slow, ineffective, easily distracted.

He promised to protect us from Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Yet he can't even protect us from a Biological weapon called: standing water.
I am ashamed of my government, though he has made a few good decisions. He has been one of our worst presidents. I don't hate him, I dislike his policies, but overall he's been true to the American people.

OUT-FUCKING-STANDINGLY SAID, SIR!
Brilliant and reasoned, eloquently and efficiently stated.
I salute you.

I dislike Bush because he doesn't care for the environment, because he lies to the public about WMD and gets away with it, because he starts a preemptive war, because of Guantanamo, because of his "you're either with us or against us", because he promotes ID, because of Halliburton, etc.


Yeah this is why. By the way are you against ID (Identification) or do you mean Intelligence Design? When did Bush say he was for that?

Oh thing you fan say about Bush: he loves his irony, here is why:
1) First Bush didn't lie about WMD. He was given bad intelligence about WMD. There is a BIG difference. However, I don't expect people on here to really know the difference so I'll just leave it at that.

2) He was never given a free pass by the Press in 2000

3) He actually does care about the environment. However, it appears the Court doesn't since they have declared alot of the Clean Air Act unconstitutional.

4) As to this thread, I guess it is mostly societal. There are things about Bush I don't like. This goes to how he is handling the illegal immigration problem. However, he is strong on National Security and Defense and this is what I look for in a leader.

1) He did know the intelligence was a lie so he lied when he said it was good intelligence thuis he lied. This also proves torture is a bad way to get trustworthy information.

2) He was actually: maybe not as nice a free pass as you'd like, but still relatively easy.

3) Clean Air Act allows businesses to increase amount of pollution in the air. This is why Bush must love Irony. :headbang:

a. Healthy Forrest: Isn't so healthy it allows loggers to cut down trees (even healthy ones).
b. Clean Air Act: Allows one to increase level of pollution to a new limit becuse previously the limit was lower.
c. What was the water act? Clean Water Act? Anyway, it increased level of mercury and arsinic in the drinking water. I kid you not! Arsinic for those "not in the know" is a poison.
d. Bush has acts that do the opposite of what they say they do. Next maybe we will have the Cold Forrest act where we burn up every tree.

Fact: Bush has done many bad things to the environment.
So this means he either:
a. Hates the einvorment.
b. Cares little for it.
c. Is a hypocrit.
d. All of the above.


However there is one good thing I can say about him, he has never lied to us, he has done everything in his power to do exactly what he said he would do even if it was a stupid idea. Determination or just being stubborn.

Yeah see, sometimes you want your leaders to actually be able to change his mind. Stubbornness(Stuffnecked) is against God's words so Bush should be sorry about that. (since he says he is a Christian).

I wouldn't care if the person was a "flip-flopper" the fact that he can change his mind when it is important (like if he is about to make bad decision) would be good.

some people truly hate President Bush because they have inadequate reproductive organs, or they still live in mommy and daddy's basement and work at some crappy fast food or part time retail job-they hate it and have to blame someone.

some people truly hate President Bush because they have inadequate reproductive organs, or they still live in mommy and daddy's basement and work at some crappy fast food or part time retail job-they hate it and have to blame someone.
Gee--to me that sounds an awful lot more like the people who support Bush. Why don't you try answering the actual charges against Bush?

1) He did know the intelligence was a lie so he lied when he said it was good intelligence thuis he lied. This also proves torture is a bad way to get trustworthy information.

:rolleyes: Another person who has been brainwashed to believe anything. I'm not even going to bother to point out the errors because I know it won't do a damn bit of good.

2) He was actually: maybe not as nice a free pass as you'd like, but still relatively easy.

Incorrect again. But I won't bother to point out why because I know this board to well.

3) Clean Air Act allows businesses to increase amount of pollution in the air. This is why Bush must love Irony. :headbang:

*snickers* I guess someone doesn't understand the fact that due to regulations, power plants couldn't revamp due to red tape. With the Clean Air Act, that is gone thus allowing power plants to renovate to be MORE CLEANER!!!!!! That was the purpose of the Clean Air Act.

a. Healthy Forrest: Isn't so healthy it allows loggers to cut down trees (even healthy ones).

Under law, they are required to plant a tree or two for everyone they cut down. Not to mention it really does cut down on the kindling for huge forest fires.

b. Clean Air Act: Allows one to increase level of pollution to a new limit becuse previously the limit was lower.

See statement above regarding Clean Air Act.

c. What was the water act? Clean Water Act? Anyway, it increased level of mercury and arsinic in the drinking water. I kid you not! Arsinic for those "not in the know" is a poison.

I use drinking water every day. I haven't been poisoned by either mercury or arsonic.

d. Bush has acts that do the opposite of what they say they do. Next maybe we will have the Cold Forrest act where we burn up every tree.

:rolleyes:

Fact: Bush has done many bad things to the environment.

False.

Yeah see, sometimes you want tour leaders to actually be able to change his mind. Stubbornness(Stuffnecked) is against God's words so Bush should be sorry about that. (since he says he is a Christian).

You sir/ma'am need to brush up on history and study abit more.

3) Clean Air Act allows businesses to increase amount of pollution in the air. This is why Bush must love Irony. :headbang:


The Clean Air Act was enacted long, long before Bush.

In fact, major provisions of it were invalidated by the Supreme Court in the mid-1990s - the fact that the government and industry continue to follow it has no basis in law - it might as well be a gentlemans' agreement at this point.

And instead of fighting that, Clinton let it slide.

So find out about the history of regulation before you start blaming Bush.

Gee--to me that sounds an awful lot more like the people who support Bush. Why don't you try answering the actual charges against Bush?

I support Bush and I am at college working for the Campus Recreation department.

I support Bush and I am at college working for the Campus Recreation department.
Yeah, well if your college offers a class in sarcasm, you ought to fucking take it. You also might want to take a class in reality, since you were claiming that Fox News was the last news group to call the election for Bush in 2000--they were the first, a fact that has been documented many times. It had to do with the fact that a Bush cousin was working for them and made the call personally.

Commie go home!

People don't so much hate Bush per se, but rather conservatives. Bush has the audacity to be for tax cuts, believe in God and not be afraid to let that shape the way he lives, and be a member of the Republican party. Some people can't get past these things, but they don't know what to do about it except spew hate. And other people don't know what to do other than agree with those spewing hate. That's the sense I get, anyway.

Yeah, well if your college offers a class in sarcasm, you ought to fucking take it. You also might want to take a class in reality, since you were claiming that Fox News was the last news group to call the election for Bush in 2000--they were the first, a fact that has been documented many times. It had to do with the fact that a Bush cousin was working for them and made the call personally.

What calling it for Kerry instead of for Bush the 1st time around or are you talking about when they called it for Bush after it went back to undecided?

What calling it for Kerry instead of for Bush the 1st time around or are you talking about when they called it for Bush after it went back to undecided?
Do you even read the posts you reply to before you answer them?

Gee--to me that sounds an awful lot more like the people who support Bush. Why don't you try answering the actual charges against Bush?

Because: 1. The thread asks why people truly hate President Bush and
2. The actual charges are really just the bullshit mantra cries of the scorned pathetic.

And no-Bush supporters tend to be both well endowed as well as gainfully employed.



And we have a sense of humor.

He's going to wrap up his second term and most likely, wont be impeached. So get over it. There are real jobs out there, as well as a whole line of male enhancement creams, pills and vaccum cleaner attachments.

If you have to ask why Bush is held in disdain, then you'll probably never understand the reasons.

...or count over 20 (21 if they're male,) or read beyond a 6th grade level...

I havn't got a clue why every one hates Bush. But I think its because most american's have become selfish, and don't want to sacrifice a few lives to free another nation from tyrany, and sense Bush is willing to sacrifice some troops the people disagree with him. Those who dissagree looked for any thing bush does wrong and attack him with his mistakes. Even though we were losing people in iraq before Bush declaired war and we were killing more innocent people in iraq when Clinton ordered bombs to be dropped.

He's going to wrap up his second term and most likely, wont be impeached.
TrueSo get over it.Get over what? The fact that he's been the worst president in the last hundred years? Nothing to get over. There are real jobs out there, as well as a whole line of male enhancement creams, pills and vaccum cleaner attachments.
You've had personal experience with those, huh? Well, all but the real job, I'd wager.

Worst president in the last hundred years? Nothing to get over. .

Worst...I don't think so. At least not from an economic standpoint.

TrueGet over what? The fact that he's been the worst president in the last hundred years? Nothing to get over.
You've had personal experience with those, huh? Well, all but the real job, I'd wager.


No, my screeching friend- I'm content with both my manhood, as well as my employment. That probably is why I tend to support President Bush and not get hysterical over it.
You'll have to have a little more self confidence before you start wagering.

Worst...I don't think so. At least not from an economic standpoint.

Its so great when people become so hysterical-to the point that in one thread, President Bush is labeled a "cocaine addict" and "the worst President in one hundred years".

Imagine how bad it will be when he finally puts a cigar in an intern's vagina.

Last I checked, the economy was doing really well - continuing to grow.

And I've gotten a much better job this year. I'm making more than I was in 2000, and have much better benefits, and live in a nicer house, and have a fraction of the debt I used to have.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.3 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter "advance" estimates are based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3). The third-quarter "preliminary" estimates, based on more comprehensive data, will be released on November 30, 2005.

The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the third quarter were personal consumption expenditures (PCE), equipment and software, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. The contributions of these components were partly offset by a negative contribution from private inventory investment.

The acceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter primarily reflected a smaller decrease in private inventory investment and accelerations in PCE and in federal government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in exports, in residential fixed investment, and in state and local government spending.

Final sales of computers contributed 0.11 percentage point to the third-quarter growth in real GDP after contributing 0.32 percentage point to the second-quarter growth. Motor vehicle output contributed 0.48 percentage point to the third-quarter growth in real GDP after subtracting 0.01 percentage point from the second-quarter growth.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 4.0 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 3.3 percent in the second. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.2 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.



FOOTNOTE.--Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2000) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.

Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 3.4 percent in the second. Durable goods purchases increased 10.8 percent, compared with an increase of 7.9 percent. Nondurable goods purchases increased 2.6 percent, compared with an increase of 3.6 percent. Services expenditures increased 3.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.3 percent.

Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 6.2 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 8.8 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.4 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 2.7 percent. Equipment and software increased 8.9 percent, compared with an increase of 10.9 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 4.8 percent, compared with an increase of 10.8 percent.

Real exports of goods and services increased 0.8 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 10.7 percent in the second. Real imports of goods and services was unchanged in the third quarter; imports decreased 0.3 percent in the second quarter.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 7.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the second. National defense increased 10.2 percent, compared with an increase of 3.7 percent. Nondefense increased 2.6 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.7 percent, compared with an increase of 2.6 percent.

The real change in private inventories subtracted 0.55 percentage point from the third-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 2.14 percentage points from the second-quarter change. Private businesses reduced inventories $16.6 billion in the third quarter, following a decrease of $1.7 billion in the second quarter and an increase of $58.2 billion in the first.

Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 4.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 5.6 percent in the second.


Gross domestic purchases

Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever produced -- increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.


Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income increased $71.8 billion (2.8 percent) in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $147.8 billion (6.0 percent) in the second. The slowdown in personal income partly reflected the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Rental income and proprietors' income were
reduced by the property damage caused by the hurricanes, and current transfer receipts were increased by insurance settlements related to the hurricanes.

Personal current taxes increased $10.2 billion, compared with an increase of $41.2 billion.

Disposable personal income increased $61.6 billion (2.8 percent) in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $106.6 billion (4.9 percent) in the second. Real disposable personal income decreased 0.9 percent, in contrast to an increase of 1.5 percent.

Personal outlays increased $169.0 billion (7.7 percent) in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $146.6 billion (6.8 percent) in the second. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less personal outlays -- was a negative $100.1 billion in the third quarter, compared with $7.4 billion in the second. The personal saving rate -- saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- decreased from 0.1 percent in the second quarter to a negative 1.1 percent in the third. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including
borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods.

Current-dollar GDP

Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 7.0 percent, or $211.6 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $12,589.6 billion. In the second quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 6.0 percent, or $179.2 billion.

TrueGet over what? The fact that he's been the worst president in the last hundred years? Nothing to get over.

Yeah maybe in last hundred years not in the last 200 years.

Van Buren was pretty bad, " Your cause is just, but my hands are tied" what buill was that! He cared more about votes than the American citizens. He knows that the Latterday Saint's cause was just and he let evil flurish, in missiouri; he was definately not a good man.

President Buchanan was just as bad. In 1856, he declared war on Utah for opetty reasons (like money). Luckily expect for a few american troops shooting with cannons at Utahians, it was largely a non-shooting war. Mostly because the troops were ill-prepared for winter so it took many months before the army was strong enough to attack.

But enough history lesson.


Imagine how bad it will be when he finally puts a cigar in an intern's vagina.

How bad will that be on a scale from 1- 10 with 10 being worst? A 2 because people don't care about that. Really how does that affect you personally?

How bad will that be on a scale from 1- 10 with 10 being worst? A 2 because people don't care about that. Really how does that affect you personally?

The screeching of Bush-haters will be unbearable. Personally, it wont matter at all to me.

I hate bush because most of his policies are wrong, he wants to impose his religious views on everyone, and he cheated to win the elections.

But most of all I hate him because his success vastly exceeds his intellect and abilities, and is undeserved.

And hes a moron.

I hate bush because most of his policies are wrong, he wants to impose his religious views on everyone, and he cheated to win the elections.

Now here's another falsehood. I love this thread. I can sit back and point out all the falsehoods. Both statements are falsehoods but most especially, the second statement.

But most of all I hate him because his success vastly exceeds his intellect and abilities, and is undeserved.

Now here's an odd twist. An American succeeds when he shouldn't. Gee.... sounds like the American Dream to me :D

And hes a moron.

This show your level of intellect.

I hate bush because most of his policies are wrong,

A matter of opinion.
he wants to impose his religious views on everyone,

Prove that.
and he cheated to win the elections.

If that were true, then something would have come out by now. You're saying that BOTH elections were cheated? That's laughable.

But most of all I hate him because his success vastly exceeds his intellect and abilities, and is undeserved.
Think of how unfair everything would seem if everyone got what they deserved. Deserving has nothing to do with it - he earned it.

And hes a moron.
Sorry, if he won the election, he's obviously smarter than his opponent.

Here's the way I saw it. If Bush HADN'T gone and searched for WMD's, everyone would hate him, saying that he doesn't care about America. Since he did, people still hate him, saying that he was wrong to invade Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20. If he didn't invade Iraq, and they attacked America, everyone would still hate Bush. Unfortuneatly for the guy, he is in a los/lose situation. It's tought to be a war time president. Unlike Clinton, Bush cared for more than popularity; he was willing to sacrafice his support if it meant preventing an attack.

Here's the way I saw it. If Bush HADN'T gone and searched for WMD's, everyone would hate him, saying that he doesn't care about America. Since he did, people still hate him, saying that he was wrong to invade Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20. If he didn't invade Iraq, and they attacked America, everyone would still hate Bush. Unfortuneatly for the guy, he is in a los/lose situation. It's tought to be a war time president. Unlike Clinton, Bush cared for more than popularity; he was willing to sacrafice his support if it meant preventing an attack.
At no time would Iraq have attacked America.

Even if he had WMD's they would never have reached here. He wold only have used them on enemies adjacent to him.

Your idea is laughable.
:p

Sorry, if he won the election, he's obviously smarter than his opponent.
Am I the only one who thinks that this claim is dubious logic at best? Truly, a president has never won his election if he was dumber than his opponent?

Well, scratch the election process. Just give a IQ test to every candidate and let the test show us who is going to be the next president. Hell, maybe a third-party candidate actually has a chance!

Am I the only one who thinks that this claim is dubious logic at best? Truly, a president has never won his election if he was dumber than his opponent?

Well, scratch the election process. Just give a IQ test to every candidate and let the test show us who is going to be the next president. Hell, maybe a third-party candidate actually has a chance!

What's wrong with the logic?

Either he's a very good politician, and very intelligent and successful at getting elected, or he's an idiot who can't put a campaign together - and can't attract competent staff who will help him get elected.

You can't have your conspiracy both ways.

Either Bush is smart as hell, and in some minds cheated to win (which requires brains if you're going to run a conspiracy where everyone kept their mouth shut),

or he's dumb but won anyway (which doesn't make sense)

or he's a smart politician who is good at getting elected - much smarter in that regard than Gore or Kerry.

You can't say he won because people were stupid, because a smart politician would have a better chance of convincing idiots.

Am I the only one who thinks that this claim is dubious logic at best? Truly, a president has never won his election if he was dumber than his opponent?

Well, scratch the election process. Just give a IQ test to every candidate and let the test show us who is going to be the next president. Hell, maybe a third-party candidate actually has a chance!
What kind of IQ test:
Book smarts type?
A real IQ test that test artistic/athletic stuff too or what?

Well, I don't hate Bush, but I do have problems with the foreign policy of the current White House administration:

1. They knowingly used bad intelligence to tie Al-Qaeda to Iraq.

2. They refuse to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

3. They refuse to bide by the NAFTA treaty with respect to the softwood lumber dispute with Canada.

4. They still have not captured the man who killed thousands of US citizens.

5. They enact laws that allow them to apprehend and detain anyone in the world without trial or charges being laid.

What's wrong with the logic?

Either he's a very good politician, and very intelligent and successful at getting elected, or he's an idiot who can't put a campaign together - and can't attract competent staff who will help him get elected.

You can't have your conspiracy both ways.

Either Bush is smart as hell, and in some minds cheated to win (which requires brains if you're going to run a conspiracy where everyone kept their mouth shut),

or he's dumb but won anyway (which doesn't make sense)

or he's a smart politician who is good at getting elected - much smarter in that regard than Gore or Kerry.

You can't say he won because people were stupid, because a smart politician would have a better chance of convincing idiots.
What wrong with the logic? I'll tell you what's wrong. There is no direct correllation between IQ and an electoral win. Just saying that someone is dumber because he lost an election to someone else is plain flat wrong.

There are so many variables in an election campaign that can modify the outcome that intelligence is far from a deciding factor. Hell, you mentionned a few yourself.

Even if Bush won, that doesn't mean he's not a moron. He could have run against another moron, he could have someone else direct his speach (say the VP, or daddy dearest), he could have won DESPITE being a moron.

So saying that Bush is more intelligent than the other guy because he won is laughable. You could have easilly disporven his point by showing his academic results (easily googleable) but you chose to use fuzzy logic by claiming that a win = more brainpower.

Please, if you want to shut down an assertion, try to use better debating skills than the dubious logic used in the first place.

What wrong with the logic? I'll tell you what's wrong. There is no direct correllation between IQ and an electoral win.

Maybe you have trouble reading English, so I'll make it simpler.

I'm not talking about IQ. Read my post and look carefully.

I am saying "smarter at getting elected"

which makes PERFECT sense

What kind of IQ test:
Book smarts type?
A real IQ test that test artistic/athletic stuff too or what?
Pick your pick. Although I doubt athletic stuff is that much of a prerequisite. :p

This thread is serious. I will not tolerate any nonsense. But I'm not a mod, so I can't do anything about it. But still, no nonsense.

2 + 2 = 5, for large values of 2

1) First Bush didn't lie about WMD. He was given bad intelligence about WMD. There is a BIG difference. However, I don't expect people on here to really know the difference so I'll just leave it at that.
I can't speak specifically for Bush, but the administration went out of its way to find intelligence that supported its conclusions about Iraq WMD.

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Pick your pick. Although I doubt athletic stuff is that much of a prerequisite. :p

I don't know; they jog alot those presidents.

Maybe we should have a fighting contest for president? Strongest man wins.
IQ test: higher score wins
Populace vote: higher score wins.

You need 2 wins to win Presidency.

Can you picture Bush and Kerry fighting in a match with Nader?

Maybe you have trouble reading English, so I'll make it simpler.

I'm not talking about IQ. Read my post and look carefully.

I am saying "smarter at getting elected"

which makes PERFECT sense
While I admit that English is not my primary tongue, would you care to kindly point where in:

Sorry, if he won the election, he's obviously smarter than his opponent.

was I supposed to deduce that you meant "smarter at getting elected"?

Haven't had much time to read everything.. just wanted to mention he did NOT lie about weapons of mass destruction. They found missles that could easily be made into long range weaponry and labs to make chemical/biological agents. Nukes aren't the only wmds out there.

Yes I am republican.

Saying you "hate" someone is an easier and more impressive way of saying "I fundamentally disagree with his policies and the values he embodies." I imagine that many of the Bush-haters around the world would actually get along with him. He supposedly has great personal charisma.

Haven't had much time to read everything.. just wanted to mention he did NOT lie about weapons of mass destruction. They found missles that could easily be made into long range weaponry and labs to make chemical/biological agents. Nukes aren't the only wmds out there.

Yes I am republican.
Yes but bricks do not equal a house.

They are the materials but unless they are made: they aren't the same thing.

Otherwise Children=adults because someday they might be them.

It's easy, Bush is a symbol of all that's wrong about America, just like Bin Laden is a symbol of Muslim fundementalism

...Utah...

Deseret.

Otherwise Children=adults because someday they might be them.

That's a purely artificial distinction.

I can't speak specifically for Bush, but the administration went out of its way to find intelligence that supported its conclusions about Iraq WMD.
Anyone ever see Sci-Fi show that may or may not be named Backstep where the guy gets a huge hexagonical thing and moves seven days into the past? This is an old show. Today's episode was about some presidential hopeful who planned to have a plane hijacked, blow it up or do something else with it, and blame the whole situation on the Koreans in order to garner support for going to war with and destroying Korea.

Just a thought I had after watching the show.

I can't speak specifically for Bush, but the administration went out of its way to find intelligence that supported its conclusions about Iraq WMD.

1) The Downing street memo is relatively irrelevent.

2) The whole world believed he had WMD. Not to mention the fact that Democratic Senators (before the Bush Administration) was stating that Hussein had WMD. Even Clinton thought he had wmd. This is, of course, based on all the intelligence that they were given.

Yes but bricks do not equal a house.

They are the materials but unless they are made: they aren't the same thing.

Otherwise Children=adults because someday they might be them.


Well, there was the fact that chemical agents WERE found that seems to keep slipping all those slippery minds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Plus of course, the existance of their long range missles that could delivere these agents to several of our allies.

Yes but bricks do not equal a house.

They are the materials but unless they are made: they aren't the same thing.

Otherwise Children=adults because someday they might be them.

Even having the materials is in violation of UN Resolutions :rolleyes:

Anyone ever see Sci-Fi show that may or may not be named Backstep where the guy gets a huge hexagonical thing and moves seven days into the past? This is an old show.

That'll be the series 7 Days. A great Sci-fi show.

Today's episode was about some presidential hopeful who planned to have a plane hijacked, blow it up or do something else with it, and blame the whole situation on the Koreans in order to garner support for going to war with and destroying Korea.

Just a thought I had after watching the show.

Awww I missed it! Its one of my favorite episodes :(

Also, the fact that Iraq always had a history of striving to obtain and develop and use these weapons and never cooperated or told the truth.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html


They had significant amounts of botulism, sarin, anthrax spores- all the good stuff. Do you really think they let it all be destroyed under supervision?

Is there anyone out there that wanted sadaam to have these toys?

Should we return him to power, say we're sorry and pay him reparations now?

He is very responsible guy. Responsible for slaughter and torture of thousands and thousands of his own people.

He is very responsible guy. Responsible for slaughter and torture of thousands and thousands of his own people.
Which may or may not be true. But I am sure the Islamic "democracy" it will be will be much safer, saner, and less racially charged despite Iraq containing three different Muslim sects that, quite frankly, hate each other.

Also, the fact that Iraq always had a history of striving to obtain and develop and use these weapons and never cooperated or told the truth.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html


They had significant amounts of botulism, sarin, anthrax spores- all the good stuff. Do you really think they let it all be destroyed under supervision?


If he didn't destroyed those weapons, were are they now?


Is there anyone out there that wanted sadaam to have these toys?


If he had him, were are they now? Syria? Well, it works like this: Either Bush is a liar, or he isnt, but then the CIA is incompetent, as demonstrated by the invasion of iraq. In both cases, that claim coming from america is not trustworthy.


Should we return him to power, say we're sorry and pay him reparations now?

He is very responsible guy. Responsible for slaughter and torture of thousands and thousands of his own people.


Well, curiously it seems he was willing to be exiled... something that would take him out of power, and not kill 30000 iraquis in the process.

If he didn't destroyed those weapons, were are they now?

Now this is a very interesting question and one that doesn't have any answers.

If he had him, were are they now? Syria? Well, it works like this: Either Bush is a liar, or he isnt, but then the CIA is incompetent, as demonstrated by the invasion of iraq. In both cases, that claim coming from america is not trustworthy.

We all know the CIA is incompetent. As for Syria, I wouldn't be surprised but I'll wait for evidence. I'm still wondering what was in those trucks that crossed into Syria prior to the bombs being dropped.

Well, curiously it seems he was willing to be exiled... something that would take him out of power, and not kill 30000 iraquis in the process.

If he was, then why didn't he leave?

If he didn't destroyed those weapons, were are they now?



If he had him, were are they now? Syria? Well, it works like this: Either Bush is a liar, or he isnt, but then the CIA is incompetent, as demonstrated by the invasion of iraq. In both cases, that claim coming from america is not trustworthy.



Well, curiously it seems he was willing to be exiled... something that would take him out of power, and not kill 30000 iraquis in the process.

He had the weapons as wel las the time and means to relocate/hide them within Iraq or at a friends. The story will come out.
The CIA has incompetents, sure. What was your intelligence agency doing? Maybe they were dealing with Iraq secretly, as its come out that many of our "friends" were.
sadaam willing to be exiled? Pure bullshit. You dont beleive that to be true. He's been murdering Iraqis for 30 years, starting with a teacher that insulted him as a child-dont make believe that you think he gives a flying shut for them-they were his slaves and playthings.
Maybe he exiled himself-he was the ruler of that hole we pulled him out of. Alive, by the way. No other country in the world would have captured him alive.

Its simply so totally insignificant if you find America trustworthy or not.

Now this is a very interesting question and one that doesn't have any answers.

The logical answers are simple:
a) He never had such weapons
b) He disposed of them



We all know the CIA is incompetent. As for Syria, I wouldn't be surprised but I'll wait for evidence. I'm still wondering what was in those trucks that crossed into Syria prior to the bombs being dropped.


Well, and I'm trying to be as fair as possible, but I am more willing to accept the fact that Bush is a liar than the fact the CIA, with hundreds of people on the ground, risking their lives for YOUR country (more than bush ever did) are incompetent. But that's just me, I can be wrong, but it is your country's loss no matter what.

And for evidence.. well, if you assume that the CIA is incompetent, therefore you may wait for the rest of your life for credible proof.

If you assume that the CIA is competent (And by exclusion, that bush is a liar), then why have they not found such evidence?


If he was, then why didn't he leave?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17072141-38201,00.html

The logical answers are simple:
a) He never had such weapons
b) He disposed of them

c) he moved them.

Well, and I'm trying to be as fair as possible, but I am more willing to accept the fact that Bush is a liar than the fact the CIA, with hundreds of people on the ground, risking their lives for YOUR country (more than bush ever did) are incompetent. But that's just me, I can be wrong, but it is your country's loss no matter what.

You would put more trust that Bush is a liar instead of the proven fact that the Intel was faulty. Not our fault that the rest of the world thought he had them too. But meh. Saddam was good, I will give him that, for playing the game so well.

And for evidence.. well, if you assume that the CIA is incompetent, therefore you may wait for the rest of your life for credible proof.

Hopefully my proof doesn't come from a chem or bio attack among our allies or us. BTW: anyone have anymore info on the Australian terror bust?

If you assume that the CIA is competent (And by exclusion, that bush is a liar), then why have they not found such evidence?

I don't think the CIA is competent. They have a cold war mentality that they need to change. Not to mention, they need more resources on the ground. This has been sorely lacking but now looks like it is picking up again. The CIA has finally figured out that human intelligence is better than that gathered by electronics.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17072141-38201,00.html

The deal fell apart.

Which may or may not be true. But I am sure the Islamic "democracy" it will be will be much safer, saner, and less racially charged despite Iraq containing three different Muslim sects that, quite frankly, hate each other.

We havent heard yet of Iraqi secret police resuming the practice of carrying out purges or rounding up accused enemies for systematic torture, rape and murder. And there havent been any fresh mass graves full of women and children, bulldozed over with bullets in their heads.
So-things are somewhat better.

c) he moved them.

That's an article of faith. You have no proof of that claim. And considering your country's military massive electronic and monetering capability, should those trucks have really existed, you would know, correct?



You would put more trust that Bush is a liar instead of the proven fact that the Intel was faulty. Not our fault that the rest of the world thought he had them too. But meh. Saddam was good, I will give him that, for playing the game so well.

The intel was faulty, but it was also hyped and made more "spicy" by political decision.

What rest of the world? The coalition of the willing? Those acted on the information YOU provided. My prime minister came to TV and basically said he was giving you support because he believed YOUR intel. The french had intel of their own, and guess what.. it was theirs that was right.




Hopefully my proof doesn't come from a chem or bio attack among our allies or us. BTW: anyone have anymore info on the Australian terror bust?


Your argument is as sound as saying that if you see a black cat, you will have bad luck.


I don't think the CIA is competent. They have a cold war mentality that they need to change. Not to mention, they need more resources on the ground. This has been sorely lacking but now looks like it is picking up again. The CIA has finally figured out that human intelligence is better than that gathered by electronics.


Well, good luck. Now you only have a real bad fame to get over.


The deal fell apart.

Correct. But there was willingness of saddam to be overthrow, that could have been explored if more patient minds were in power. Perhaps if he had been exiled, 30.000 civilians would be alive, and 2000 of your men. Don't you think that 2000 men are worth more patience?

That's an article of faith. You have no proof of that claim. And considering your country's military massive electronic and monetering capability, should those trucks have really existed, you would know, correct?

Just like you don't have proof that they weren't. As to your question, not necessarily accurate. We are by no means perfect.

The intel was faulty, but it was also hyped and made more "spicy" by political decision.

This has yet to be proven.

What rest of the world? The coalition of the willing? Those acted on the information YOU provided. My prime minister came to TV and basically said he was giving you support because he believed YOUR intel. The french had intel of their own, and guess what.. it was theirs that was right.

Guess what? The French thought he had WMD too. Guess what? They were getting oil deals under the table from Saddam Hussein! Guess what? France has been helping Saddam rearm. Learn your facts.

Your argument is as sound as saying that if you see a black cat, you will have bad luck.

This statement, as well as this post, makes you look like a fool.

Well, good luck. Now you only have a real bad fame to get over.

The intel will improve once the human element is re-added.

Correct. But there was willingness of saddam to be overthrow, that could have been explored if more patient minds were in power. Perhaps if he had been exiled, 30.000 civilians would be alive, and 2000 of your men. Don't you think that 2000 men are worth more patience?

It was explored. We also gave him 48 hours to leave power. We gave him every opportunity and he didn't take them. That is an historical fact.

I don't hate bush, just all forms of hierarchy in general










-----

Just like you don't have proof that they weren't. As to your question, not necessarily accurate. We are by no means perfect.

It is far more logical to assume that those weapons simply weren't there. All other explanations are far fetched, logical only if you are a warmonger.



Guess what? The French thought he had WMD too. Guess what? They were getting oil deals under the table from Saddam Hussein! Guess what? France has been helping Saddam rearm. Learn your facts.


Really? Please put me a link were France states that it believes 100% that saddam has wmd's.
How many French Mirages and LeClercs were destroyed in this Invasion?


This statement, as well as this post, makes you look like a fool.


So? Reality makes YOU look like a fool, but you keep on posting.


It was explored. We also gave him 48 hours to leave power. We gave him every opportunity and he didn't take them. That is an historical fact.

2000 men for 48 hours. Well, your war, your hands with their blood. And you call yourselves patriots.

I hate George Bush for the following reasons.

1. Employing tactics to gain political office that included smear campaigns,
political assassinations, lying, cheating, skullduggery, and possible illegality...

...all before he even entered the presidential election.

2. Having no agenda but that wich involved invading Iraq, even before the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

3. Using the events of 9/11 to invade a nation that had nothing to do with it, on false pretenses of possessing WMD's.
For those of you who say there is no proof of this are frankly, lying to yourselves, and only wishing to hear waht you want.
This is why Rove leaked the name of Wilson's wife to the press.
Becuase Wilson was sent to investigate the claims of the "yellowcake uranium", and found no evidence to support it, and reported the information he had found.
Thus, to publicly discredit him, and to turn media attention away from his findings, Rove leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent, to the press.

4. For employing people with absolutely no moral fiber.
Karl Rove, is a good example of a person who is willing to win at all costs.
He has used smear campaigns even against members of his own party, including John McCain.

5. For attempting to give important positions in the American Judicial system to his friends, regardless of qualifications.

6. For caring little for the american people, and only focusing attention to the rich, and extreme upper class.

7. For turning a record surplus, into a record deficit.

8. For destroying the years of hard work by other administrations, in the realms of foriegn relations.

9. for ruining the already shady image of America, to the rest of the world.

10. For invading a nation, against the wishes of the U.N, while using a U.N resolution as a reason.

11. Did I mention the whole lying douchebag thing?

11. Did I mention the whole lying douchebag thing?
Were it biologically feasible to do so, I would like to bear your children, Squatches. Thank you for that last post.

Were it biologically feasible to do so, I would like to bear your children, Squatches. Thank you for that last post.


If the idea didnt gimme the willies, I'd let ya.

1) Bush is not active evil like some people might think. If anything, he strikes me more as an incompetent welfare recepient who gets away with bankrupting businesses he ran (which is a warning sign in and of themselves) and performing shoddily only because of his connections and status. Anyone (especially a Democrat) who was slightly less incompetent in Bush's place would have been fired long ago.

2) The intelligence on Iraq was cherry-picked for the best pro-war excuse, the way Christian fundamentalists cherry-pick Leviticus for the best anti-gay excuses. And if someone in government refuted the prevailing atittude (coughcoughJoeWilsoncoughcough) he or she was the target of retribution.

3) Even if it's empty promises, Bush pandering to Christian fundamentalists who believe that Margaret Atwood wrote "a damn great idea for running this country" is dangerous to the Bill of Rights. Faith-Based Initiative is one notable sledgehammer shot at the line separating Church and State, especially since non-WASP religions are more likely to be turned down by it.

4) Flip-flopping on an international scale (after painting Kerry as a flip-flopper with the help of Karl Rove) by declaring that "America is not into nation-building" then invading Iraq a few years later.

5) Aiding terrorism more than fighting it with inconsistent or detrimental policies. Osama Bin Ladin is still out there plotting more international attacks yet Bush isn't worried the slightest about him. The shoddy handling of Iraq- especially disbanding its military and infrastructure- has in fact turned the country into a training ground where insurgents and Jihadists can gain XPs and level like mad before turning attention towards serious American interests as targets.