Good job Bush.

[Absinthe]

Fair enough, but where's the documentation, quotes, or actions that would lead people to believe this? We were told Osama was responsible, Osama himself took responsibility, yet 70% of America belives it was Hussein? I have a hard time believing that. I haven't personally seen or heard anything from the Bush administration that would lead me to think Hussein had his hand in 9/11. As I stated earlier, that's not why I feel we are over there.

Here's another link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

And another one that may interest you.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/10/21/bush_reality/

 

[Steelwind]

Take care of your own problems before attempting to be a global cop once more.

Who else is going to do it?

 

[burner69]

Again, thanks for the quotes. I'd like to see what dates those were taken. Looking for evidence doesn't mean we didn't find any, or that it become the sole reason we invaded Iraq. As well, just because Bush believed they had connections, doesn't mean it was the sole basis for the attack itself. If intelligence was gathered showing no link, there must have been something else that came to light that would garner support for Bush to go to war.

The quotes were about a year old. I admit they aren't the best, but similar one's can be found that are much more recent.

Agreed, Bush did not go into Iraq based soley on the idea that Saddam was a terrorist, or a friend of. But even if it was billed as a soley "WMD" war, the evidence, as shown, was not substantial. It was lacking to say the least. I appreciate there would have been grave concern from bush if he was told Iraq might have WMDs. But let's be honest, despite being reluctant at the start, he let UN inspecters in. And then when the war started and we could openly search everywhere, no trace was found.
This is war. One of the most serious things that can happen in our world. Going to war based around poor intelligence is stupid. Saddam also had no reason to attack any of us. Why would he? He knew we had far more resources than him, the last thing he'd want would be America invading.

But it must be remembered we were taken to war on the premise of terrorism and WMDs. We've come out the other side saying "Thank God that evil bastard has gone." We've not been let in on everthing here.

 

[Element Alpha]

Many of you seem to base your pro-bush argument on slagging off others for not believing what you do, laughing because we actually DON'T have much of a say...

I read most of what you said, but this part made me want to say:

What if americans had a different view than Bush? Would Bush listen? Isn't half your population against the war, and pro-abortion, also pro-homosexual wedding?(who are you to tell two people they can't vow to love each other forever anyway?) They have nothing to say either. Funny thing you call democracy. Protests were met with police violence and neglected, so don't mention those. The truth is, you are in the same camp as non-americans: the US governament doesn't listen to you either. But I don't blame you for not understanding. I blame you for not thinking for yourself and believing everything you hear without consideration or second thought.

"If your president tells a lie, there will always be people who'll believe him, sometimes they'll even be the majority. So why should he tell the truth when he can just lie?" (This is not a question, just something I felt like mentioning)

 

[Absinthe]

Who else is going to do it?

Be global cop? In the end, America probably will. But Bush still has a country to run and he has citizens to protect. I don't think isolationism is a good idea, but the US President is in charge of running the United States, and his priorities lie in the interest of the homeland.

Other countries do have to come second.

 

[Steelwind]

Here's another link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

And another one that may interest you.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/10/21/bush_reality/

Again, thank you for the links. Perhaps they had documented proof that Iraq had links to Al Queda. Perhaps they didn't. I don't think we'll ever know. But that doesn't automatically mean we were lied to. Information and sources showing links could very well exist. I promise you that everything that goes on up in Washington is not presented to the American people, good or bad. I personally don't see enough supportive evidence that no documentation, sources, intelligence, etc were provdied. For all we know they may have a filing cabinet full of it.

bush knew saddam had no wmd ...why else draw up plans to invade iraq before 9/11 look up Project for the new American century: an organization whose members include: Rumsfeld, cheney. jeb bush, ari fleischer etc ...they have been pushing to invade iraq since the mid 90's ...blame the neo-cons they were the ones that "manufactured consent

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I think too many people let their imaginations be the foundation for their reasoning. I think this fits right up there with the 9/11 consipracy, Roswell, JFK, etc.

 

[Steelwind]

Be global cop? In the end, America probably will. But Bush still has a country to run and he has citizens to protect. I don't think isolationism is a good idea, but the US President is in charge of running the United States, and his priorities lie in the interest of the homeland.

Other countries do have to come second.

I agree, his interests do lie in the homeland. I think he's more than capable of handling both sitations at once. Just because he is running the country and protecting the citizens doesn't mean he can't take part in global issues as well. If anyone has the resources to do it, it is the United States. As well, I personally feel his hand in the Iraq issue IS an act towards protecting our citizens. It is possible to chew bubble gum and talk at the same time.

 

[AntiAnto]

Do you remember that Bush lied to you? Yes you, americans that you are.

 

[Steelwind]

Do you remember that Bush lied to you? Yes you, americans that you are.

If you don't have anything to add to this conversation, why are you posting here? And people wonder why they get called trollers or spammers.

 

[burner69]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Check out the video as well.

And reading between the lines and "assuming" should not come into starting a bloody war. You need proof. And again, I ask, even if Saddam COULD have launced WMD, which there was little evidence to support, the fact remains he had no reason to do so. When you 'read between the lines' of what bush was up 2, you see that clearly he had other agendas in mind.

Minimum wage?
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/minimum_wage02.shtml

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

If you don't have anything to add to this conversation, why are you posting here? And people wonder why they get called trollers or spammers.

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[Steelwind]

Minimum wage?
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/minimum_wage02.shtml

Minimum wage hasn't changed in years, at least not in Texas. When it does change, it goes up. I'm not following.

After looking it over, I see what they are saying. It's not that minimum wage has decreased, but that costs have risen and minimum wage isn't keeping up. It's been like that since the inception of minimum wage though, I don't see how you could link this to Bush and his administration. Besides, his plan to further educate works so they can find better jobs or start buisness they create jobs, will help deter this problem related to minimum wage.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Minimum wage hasn't changed in years, at least not in Texas. When it does change, it goes up. I'm not following.

Does the same thing here in North Carolina.

 

[Steelwind]

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

I think the big deal is that he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. He is held to higher standards than anyone else. Whether that is fair or not remains to be determined, but he does have expectations placed upon him that no one else does. A white lie from you or me doesn't effect millions of people.

 

[Absinthe]

I agree, his interests do lie in the homeland. I think he's more than capable of handling both sitations at once. Just because he is running the country and protecting the citizens doesn't mean he can't take part in global issues as well. If anyone has the resources to do it, it is the United States. As well, I personally feel his hand in the Iraq issue IS an act towards protecting our citizens. It is possible to chew bubble gum and talk at the same time.

He's not just running the country, protecting its citizens, and engaging in global issues. He's doing all that after America just had an economic breakdown and our security was threatened. Before that, we were relatively freed up when it came to the globe. After 9/11, priorities need to change. It's hard enough to maintain your current position in the world, but then Bush goes ahead and decides to invade a country.

Now, if the invasion of this country is directly beneficial to the United States, then okay. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. Since it was those people that attacked us, I believed that we'd be safer due to that war.
Iraq is a different issue. Maybe it was with the US in mind. Maybe it wasn't. The fact is that the intelligence shoddy, no WMD's have been found, no links to Al Qaeda have been found, Iraq has turned into a congregation center for insurgents and terrorists, and anti-American sentiments have risen (possibly putting us in even more danger). Furthermore, due to a series of chain reactions stemming from Iraq, we have a problem with North Korea.
An act towards ensuring the well-being of the USA, IMO, would have been a consistent attack against Al Qaeda, or an increased effort at bettering the economy. Deposing a dictator could have waited.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Kerry would've lied too, so I don't see why everyone is jumping down Bush's throat.

 

[Absinthe]

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

A) Lying to your girlfriend about having sex with her friend.

B) Lying to your parents about going out and drinking alcohol.

C) Lying to your teacher about not doing your homework.

D) Lying to your country about going to a war that has resulted in 14,000 Iraqi deaths and 1,000 US troop deaths.

Please pick the worst one. If the answer isn't obvious, then I can't help you.

 

[Steelwind]

He's not just running the country, protecting its citizens, and engaging in global issues. He's doing all that after America just had an economic breakdown and our security was threatened. Before that, we were relatively freed up when it came to the globe. After 9/11, priorities need to change. It's hard enough to maintain your current position in the world, but then Bush goes ahead and decides to invade a country.

Now, if the invasion of this country is directly beneficial to the United States, then okay. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. Since it was those people that attacked us, I believed that we'd be safer due to that war.
Iraq is a different issue. Maybe it was with the US in mind. Maybe it wasn't. The fact is that the intelligence shoddy, no WMD's have been found, no links to Al Qaeda have been found, Iraq has turned into a congregation center for insurgents and terrorists, and anti-American sentiments have risen (possibly putting us in even more danger). Furthermore, due to a series of chain reactions stemming from Iraq, we have a problem with North Korea.
An act towards ensuring the well-being of the USA, IMO, would have been a consistent attack against Al Qaeda, or an increased effort at bettering the economy. Deposing a dictator could have waited.

Apparently from the links you supplied earlier about voter motivation, the Iraq ordeal isn't a main concern for them. They voted for Bush based on numerous other issues that are directly related to the issues at home. Whatever the reason Bush had for going over to Iraq, good or bad, America obviously doesn't find it to be that important of an issue. Otherwise more Americans would have voted against Bush, to allow Kerry to withdrawl from other countries and continue to focus on homeland issues. So again I ask, if Bush lied to his country to allow us to go to war and everyone is so upset about it, why didn't more people vote against him? It is either because he didn't lie, people didn't feel he lied, or the issue isn't important enough to warrent a vote based on that one issue alone.

 

[Absinthe]

Apparently from the links you supplied earlier about voter motivation, the Iraq ordeal isn't a main concern for them. They voted for Bush based on numerous other issues that are directly related to the issues at home. Whatever the reason Bush had for going over to Iraq, good or bad, America obviously doesn't find it to be that important of an issue. Otherwise more Americans would have voted against Bush, to allow Kerry to withdrawl from other countries and continue to focus on homeland issues. So again I ask, if Bush lied to his country to allow us to go to war and everyone is so upset about it, why didn't more people vote against him? It is either because he didn't lie, people didn't feel he lied, or the issue isn't important enough to warrent a vote based on that one issue alone.

I wasn't criticizing the US voters. I was criticizing the government.

But it is your last sentence that strikes me as very true. And that's what scares me. I remember reading a poll once, where the majority of Americans thought that the government had lied about something or was witholding a good deal of information regarding Iraq. I would like to supply a link to it, but I simply can't remember where I saw it.
I'm convinced that the Bush administration lied or skewed the information they gave to the American people.

If people don't feel they've been lied to, then I think they've done a good job of being duped, as seen in the article I supplied earlier.
If people think that crap like gay marriage is more important than an unnecessary war that has killed thousands, then the American people have priority issues.

These are just my views.

Maybe this will continue tomorrow. I'm tired. Oh yeah, and I want to thank you, Steelwind. You're actually quite fun to argue with.

 

[Steelwind]

I agree with you. If people really were voting mainly on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc and ignoring the immense conflict at hand then they need to reconsider voting in the first place. The problem is all of these issues are lumped together, the way the bipartisian government works. People aren't always for or against every single issue their party is aligned with. I know I myself am not, and many others I know. However, they look at all the issues as a whole and don't prioritize them. So if they agree with more issues on the left than the right, they'll vote left. That's how the system is setup, and that's how it will continue to work. It's unfortunate that some higher priority issues get lost in the flood of smaller ones. But in my opinion that doesn't make Bush the bad guy.

 

[burner69]

Kerry would've lied too, so I don't see why everyone is jumping down Bush's throat.

Erm... because he lied?
Stop bringing things down to personal levels, this is politics, not soap operas.
"Everyone lies" is not an excuse for Bush to lie to his people to get them to support a war I'm sure he knew was unfounded.

This attitude frightens me. Clinton lost incredible popularity over lying about a BJ. Bush lies about matters that drags you into a war and you're quite happy to go with it.

 

[Steelwind]

Maybe this will continue tomorrow. I'm tired. Oh yeah, and I want to thank you, Steelwind. You're actually quite fun to argue with.

Haha. Your welcome. No arguing intended, just a good old discussion on politics. I think too many people get wrapped up in being "right" or "winning". That's not what it is about. It's about seeing things from a different light, getting another point of view, and possibly learning something along the way. Just because you're having a discussion on something doesn't mean you have to abandon your views or accept defeat. That's not the point.

Sleep well, and I look forward to discussing some more later on.

 

[burner69]

I agree with you. If people really were voting mainly on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc and ignoring the immense conflict at hand then they need to reconsider voting in the first place. The problem is all of these issues are lumped together, the way the bipartisian government works. People aren't always for or against every single issue their party is aligned with. I know I myself am not, and many others I know. However, they look at all the issues as a whole and don't prioritize them. So if they agree with more issues on the left than the right, they'll vote left. That's how the system is setup, and that's how it will continue to work. It's unfortunate that some higher priority issues get lost in the flood of smaller ones. But in my opinion that doesn't make Bush the bad guy.

The system is flawed, and I don't have answers for it. It's very refreshing that you can argue a case for your side, you seem one of the only ones in this forum capable of doing it .

The reason Bush is bad is because of what he has done, not how he was voted in.
He is bad because he is bad at running his country. He is bad because he lies to take you into war. He is dam near evil for starting a war he knew didn't have a solid foundation - now it is revealed his pretenses were wrong, people still support him. I don't get it.

 

[KidRock]

To many ungrateful people in this world..tsk tsk.

 

[Steelwind]

He is bad because he is bad at running his country. He is bad because he lies to take you into war. He is dam near evil for starting a war he knew didn't have a solid foundation - now it is revealed his pretenses were wrong, people still support him. I don't get it.

You say he's bad at running the country, but we're not that much worse off than before. Sure we've got a much larger deficit now, but we would have had that reguardless who was president. The American people demanded action after 9/11, had Gore been president he would have received the same information and been under the same public pressures. We would still have the deficit we had now.

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. We don't have all the facts and we never will. But again, apparently the issue wasn't of great concern for the majority of the American people. Obviously not enough proof has been given to the people that Bush did infact lie. Otherwise I think we would have seen Bush been kicked out of office or not re-elected. Clinton blatently lied in court and to the American people, directly to their face. We've shown nothing that Bush has done the same. Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

Exactly.

 

[Ennui]

Does the same thing here in North Carolina.

Where in NC?

 

[burner69]

You say he's bad at running the country, but we're not that much worse off than before. Sure we've got a much larger deficit now, but we would have had that reguardless who was president. The American people demanded action after 9/11, had Gore been president he would have received the same information and been under the same public pressures. We would still have the deficit we had now.

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. We don't have all the facts and we never will. But again, apparently the issue wasn't of great concern for the majority of the American people. Obviously not enough proof has been given to the people that Bush did infact lie. Otherwise I think we would have seen Bush been kicked out of office or not re-elected. Clinton blatently lied in court and to the American people, directly to their face. We've shown nothing that Bush has done the same. Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?
It is possible to capture terrorists operating in a country without declaring war on them.

And true enough, we will never know if he lied to us. But we do know he made some very serious mistakes that undoubtably cost lives and affected people's judgment towards the US.

Politicians are slippery animals, Clinton never had "sexual relations". I think that includes BJs, he says he didnt. But let's be honest, the people should not give a shit whether he's getting his wicked end away, they should worry whether or not their troops are possibily being killed unesesarily. And if through the war they've been taken into, the world has been made more dangerous.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?

1. Unknown
2. Yes

 

[burner69]

To many ungrateful people in this world..tsk tsk.

What do we have to be grateful for?
You seem to miss the point of our argument time and time again. You're making a mockery out of the pro-bush people here without realising it.

Come back when you have something of relevence to say.

 

[Steelwind]

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?
It is possible to capture terrorists operating in a country without declaring war on them.

I'm curious as to how you'd go about it? If we didn't invade Afgan to capture Al Queda and their leadership, how would we have?

But we do know he made some very serious mistakes that undoubtably cost lives and affected people's judgment towards the US.

Those "mistakes" are subjective.

 

[burner69]

1. Unknown
2. Yes

If Gore didn't invade Iraq, that would, IMO, make him better at handling the situation.
Do you not think there are other ways to get at terrorists within a country without the aid of airstrikes? Remember Al Queda is a small group. declaring war on the entire country was a little rash.

 

[burner69]

I'm curious as to how you'd go about it? If we didn't invade Afgan to capture Al Queda and their leadership, how would we have?
Those "mistakes" are subjective.

Through intelligence. Finding out where they were hiding. Targetting those specific areas with black-ops, SAS, whatever.

When it comes to war subjectivity should not come into it, at least not in the scale it has with Iraq. And the fact that he thought there were WMDs, or said he thought there were, and there weren't - IS a mistake. The fact is he told his people Saddam had links to Al Queda, that was wrong, that was a mistake.

 

[burner69]

Through intelligence. Finding out where they were hiding. Targetting those specific areas with black-ops, SAS, whatever.

Btw I don't think that is the only way, or even the best way at all. It was just another possibility. I just thought the "charge right in" approach was just done to show the american people revenge was being taken, regardless of risk towards innocent afgans.

It worked, because, I'm sad to say, I spoke with people who were quite happy that Afgans were being killed "They deserve it." I was told :angry:

 

[merc]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc

 

[KidRock]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc

I agree... they are just angry :E

 

[burner69]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc

I don't hate bush because of that. I hate him because of the evidence I've seen.
Clueless? I've been showing people news articles, facts, figures, even videos of Bush admitting to his mistakes. People who come on here and make generalisations that suit are the only one's being clueless, pro-bush or not.
And kidrock, you're ability to add nothing to a debate astounds me. Stop just agreeing with people and make a point for yourself.

EDIT: Oh, and am I a liberal ****** for disliking the killing of innocent people?

 

[Johan_Tayn]

God Bless Our President!
God Bless Our Country!

..as he ever has.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

something negitive

give liberals a better face by allowing happy people to be happy instead of complaining that people who disagree with you are morons. please.

 

[burner69]

God Bless Our President!
God Bless Our Country!

..as he ever has.

Church and state should be seperate. God bless nothing. Your country has many people who don't believe in God. And now, with same sex marriage being banned because of outdated religious views, it seems many homosexuals will also dislike your dollar bills "In God we trust" is it?