Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Oh no! Do you have any idea of what youve done?
The George W. Bush Thread
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
Archer 007
Rebirth
Just like Bush and Halliburton.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I'm such a bull because that war was pure crap for the reason I've just explained. Bush Administration has lied to the Americans and Americans had jumped on it... swallowing everything like kittens.
Now, you consider the UN Security Council to be useless when it has been proven right (about the so called "urgent threat" caused by Iraq). Now, you're considering France as an ennemy to punish simply for the exact same reason. How do you want me to not be pissed off ?
The thing is just that I've been deeply disappointed by americans during that whole story. I just realized Americans didn't accept debate anymore. Allies should go in their way or they have to be punished.
I would consent to give such a part to America as long as it would be about decisions taken on a rationnal basis. But that war had been totally ideological ! And when we get the liberty to think by ourselves about the alternatives of such a move, then we should just shut up and let the big boy goes. That's stupid.I hate Bush because he's the caricature of how antiamericans are picturing the United States. And yes, I hate him for that.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I agree with you. Opposing a veto was definitly stupid, abstention was enough. With only 4 countries voting "yes" at the security council, there was no way for a war resolution to pass. That's the reason why Collin Powell would have never issued a new resolution to make the war legal. Talking about a veto wasn't necessary.
However, just to give an excuse. Russians already declared a day before they were putting their veto. So concretely, that French veto would have changed nothing.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
I think lying under oath about private life is not even 1% as bad as lying, not under oath, about WMD.
On the other hand: Clinton did approv Kyoto and ICC, while he knew that senate / congress wouldn't back him up. That was rather sneaky.
But this thread is about Bush.
Bush told the world that Iraq was a thread (to the US), as it could send rockets with gas.
I think it is pretty save to say that was bull!
Nevertheless, he made the right choice in kicking Saddam's butt. Dictator bashing is always good I think!
On the other hand: Clinton did approv Kyoto and ICC, while he knew that senate / congress wouldn't back him up. That was rather sneaky.
But this thread is about Bush.
Bush told the world that Iraq was a thread (to the US), as it could send rockets with gas.
I think it is pretty save to say that was bull!
Nevertheless, he made the right choice in kicking Saddam's butt. Dictator bashing is always good I think!
Archer 007
Rebirth
I think Clinton really like Kyoto and ICC. Its not his fault the Republicans didnt want it.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I agree with that. It's simply that the way it's been made had just been absolutely stupid.
Damn, wich I keept more links, but regarding this, I have read a report that the list of people not alowed to vote was not correct... will see if I got to stamina to look for it.
Now, the recounts was stoped by the supream court(5-4). So who would have won if they had continued. Well that depends on how you count... when this comes up someone ussaly links to som articel by the whasington post and say look GB won. But they don't seam to read the bottom of the articel where they say Gore won if you counted like this and Bush if you counted like this.
Now no matter what, the margin of around 500(correct me if I'm wronge) votes, have to be inside the margin of error. 16 million in florida say 50% vote thats 8 million, and 500 of that is 0.00625%.
I say do 100 recounts, to be sure of that the side that won(no matter who) did that and is not only an counting error.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
????????
99-0
J
Yes , i agree with you 100 %.
It look like the religious right winger give much more discredit to adultery in private life then a ''holy war" or ''jihad". It just proove how the religious judeo-christian right winger put their priority.
In a simple way, having sex is bad bad bad and evil, killing heretic muslim is ok, whatever the reason, even lies is ok.
Archer 007
Rebirth
No bid contracts and the VP getting cut checks from Halliburton doesnt scream corruption to you.
Singularity
Infinite Density
I can sum up Bush's problems quite easily. Legitimazy. He was elected by a few broken voting ballots. He just barely got enough support for the war, though in my eyes he had a sizeable camp in the UN when he declared war. The troika was in a much more ragged band of fluid opposition to the war.
Still, I wouldn't call it the world vs saddam. So still a problem with legitimazy.
He's not a great diplomat like Clinton was, he's rash and seem to be hard pressed when he has to make spontanious comments to the press. And I suspect that the academics, the intelectual elite and teh nontabloid media are much more anti Bush, than they ever where anti Clinton.
And sorry, that boyish 'texan cowboy carisma' doesn't go down smoothly over here in europe. It's just not our style. Same as some european politicians make republicans in the states sick...
Still, I wouldn't call it the world vs saddam. So still a problem with legitimazy.
He's not a great diplomat like Clinton was, he's rash and seem to be hard pressed when he has to make spontanious comments to the press. And I suspect that the academics, the intelectual elite and teh nontabloid media are much more anti Bush, than they ever where anti Clinton.
And sorry, that boyish 'texan cowboy carisma' doesn't go down smoothly over here in europe. It's just not our style. Same as some european politicians make republicans in the states sick...
Singularity
Infinite Density
Do you really think 99 was opposed to the plan? Or was it the majority of the republicans who made any other vote made moot?
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Did Bush lie about WMDs? To lie you have to know that you are not telling the truth. Bush had to have known that there was absolutely no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Did he? I suppose only he could answer that. However I am more inclined to believe that there were WMDs or at least something related to WMDs because of Saddam's actions towards the UN weapons inspectors. That these WMDs were hidden or removed to Syria during or more likely before the war. However if you don't believe Saddam ever had WMDs then it could just be a simple case of poor intelligence. Intelligence gathering is not a perfect science after all. Therefore Bush did not lie but was let down by the intelligence services or put too much faith in the accuracy of the intelligence he was being provided with. My point is that you need a hell of a lot of evidence to say he lied about WMDs. Just because there aren't any, or any haven't been found yet, doesn't mean Bush (and Blair) lied about the threat from Iraq. Also the case for war did not rest solely on the shoulders of WMDs that just happened to be the one reason all the agencies of the American government could agree on. That is not true for Blair and the British government but that's for another thread.
Archer 007
Rebirth
I can agree with him in that if they really felt that way, they would have made protest votes. People even vote against the $98B for the troops in Iraq and Afghanstan (something I would have voted againsta also)
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
He did say that Iraq was an immediate thread, which was utter nonsense.
My grandmother was a greater thread to the US, than Saddam.
Archer 007
Rebirth
He said that Iraq had brought uranium in Africa. We know that was false.
delsully
Prince
Come on people, Saddam got his WMD through his links with Al-Queda. Just ask W.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Sarcasm at its best.Yes,
On June 5, 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed to prove to the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "We'll reveal the truth," he told a group of U.S. troops in Doha, Qatar. It was this belief - that Iraq held such weapons - that Bush and like-minded leaders pointed to as justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
But questions remain. Months after the coalition declared victory in the Iraq war, the U.S. has yet to reveal anything definitive to prove the allegations. Here is a look at how some of these allegations have stood the test of time.
THEN
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."
-George W. Bush's state of the union address, Jan. 28, 2003
NOW
"Here we are in June of 2003. Show me the weapons; where are they? What evidence did this administration have to spend $63 billion in taxpayers' money? What evidence did this administration have to put the lives of American servicewomen and men on the line?"
-U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, June 5, 2003
More and more:http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/wmd_testoftime.html
It is the Canadian governement site news.
