bush in 30 seconds

Ok so many people here love to bash bush. But I see no good replacement for him in the ranks of the Democratic Party either. You have Dean who has a different view on the issues depending on who the audience is and were the rally is being held, Gepart(sp?) who has been accused of racial discrimination, Sharpton…don’t even get me started on him.

Face it the election will simply be a choice between two evils, no one other than big business and the lobbyist with the most money get the policy changes any way.

Some facts on the mater as I see it:

Unemployment:
This is of no fault to the president. He did not cause the burst of the technologies markets, nor did he order the two planes to crash into the towers, or the third into the Pentagon.

The biggest contributor…manufacturing jobs being outsourced to china. This was started in the mid to late 80’s. Long before W was even running for Prez.

Afghanistan:
They hit us below the belt plain and simple; if we do not counter attack a violent and unprovoked attack such as 911 we open ourselves up to the full force of the terrorist intentions. This is the same reason why the US has the no negotiating policy.

Iraq:
It is about time we got rid of Sadom, only problem…now you have two highly militant and violent factions of the Muslim faith that want total power and nothing less than to eliminate the other. France just doesn’t want us there because they are afraid that we might discover they were supplying banned merchandise and weapons. Even if they did support us, we would just have to come to their rescue anyway… French revolution, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, need I say more.

Next I think we need to look at Saudi:
After all almost all of the money for the 911 attack was routed through that country. Remember the princess who after it was discovered that she gave over 1 billion dollars, “I was fooled into believing it was a business investment”. And the fact that most of the terrorist are Saudi nationals.

Like it or not as the wealthiest, and most powerful country we are the police for of the world. Some of the decisions that the Bush administration have made in the past 3.5 years may have been rushed and could have been executed in a more acceptable fashion. But I highly doubt any of the current candidates could have handled what has happened in this presidential term any better.

After all it has been over 200 years since our homeland fell under attack by an outside military, and that was Britain.

You should get out more. I’m not going to even waste my time refuting everything you said, because it’s so obvious it’s silly. If you believe what you just typed, you, my friend, need to do a little more research and stop depending on Fox news for your information.

/glad to be a canuck.

A lot what he said is correct. And I get out plenty and read a lot. I always wonder why people feel the need to call someone a Nazi or say you only watch fox news b/c they disagree with you… is it ignorance? Funny how manipulitive and biased some people are. Look at the Dems currently, they’ve been attacking Bush and now they’re attacking each other.

As for the videos I actually liked the Computer one the best. Very simple and didn’t seem like propaganda like the others. The biggest problem our country has is not one individual, the biggest problem is the two party system. Keep work/progress from getting done, their alliances w/ certain interests groups and industries hurt the public, and they don’t offer us the best man for the job. Frankly I’m disappointed that Americans have had to chose b/n the lesser of two evils every election time and get pit against each other right or left, red or blue. Bush 1 & 2, Cheney and Clinton & Gore are all shady. We deserve better.

Agree. But a continuation of Bush Sr.'s trade policies exacerbates the situation; it doesn’t improve it.

Afghanistan:
They hit us below the belt plain and simple

“They”? Was it Afghanistan or al Qaeda? And was it Afghanistan or the ruling Taliban that supported al Qaeda? Accuracy is everything.

Iraq:
It is about time we got rid of Sadom,

But that wasn’t the reason for war; the reason so many American lives have been lost. The U.S. rushed into war because Iraq alledgedly posed an imminent and immediate danger to the American way of life ("nuclear materials! nuclear materials!). Last I checked, really old mortar shells found dumped in what used to be a swamp, filled with WWI-era chemical agents you can concoct with grocery store ingrediants, doesn’t pose an imminent threat to the “American way of life”. If it does, we really need to review how we’re spending our Defense budget, imo.

France just doesn’t want us there because they are afraid that we might discover they were supplying banned merchandise and weapons.

This assessment is based on … what? Please elaborate. And make sure you don’t make the same kinds of mistakes you make below.

Even if they did support us, we would just have to come to their rescue anyway… French revolution, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, need I say more.

Actually, you really should say more. Either to try to make some worthwhile sense, or to give everyone a bigger laugh!

  • French Revolution? We came “to their rescue”? huh? Educate me (this should be interesting).

  • It may be worth remembering that the U.S. attempted to stay out of WWI and WWII. Our own interests brought us into those fights (in addition to a few well-placed, historically-documented lies - eg the “noble lies” of FDR.)

  • wrt Vietnam, we sure rescued the French at Dien Bien Phu, didn’t we? We rescued them from the disgrace of living as cowards; so we ignored their request for assistance and let them die! Way to go, Eik! And after the French left in 1954, the U.S. made a mad dash to help them in 1963, right? hahahaha Next time, we should have our rescuers drive across the Pacific; taking boats and planes takes way too long.

Next I think we need to look at Saudi:

But Saudi Arabia is our friend. We sell them lots of pretty weapons! We helped keep an autocracy in power while the poor masses became more poor; while the undecideds made a decision to join the terrorists because the U.S. was helping to keep them oppressed by supporting the ruling class. Not Saudi Arabia! NO! hahahahaha

And the fact that most of the terrorist are Saudi nationals.

Yeah. And we sure made Iraq pay for that! Now if we do something about Saudi Arabia, how we going to be able to blame someone else for the acts of more Saudi nationals? Why not leave the Saudi’s alone, wait for another terrorist attack, and invade Cuba! or hell, let’s invade France!

Like it or not as the wealthiest, and most powerful country we are the police for of the world.

Which type of police are you suggesting we should be? The “good” ones or the ones that do baaaaad things with their batons behind closed doors.

Some of the decisions that the Bush administration have made in the past 3.5 years may have been rushed and could have been executed in a more acceptable fashion.

Well, according Paul O’Neil, this certainly doesn’t include the invasion of Iraq; that was being actively planned within a couple of weeks of Dubya getting sworn into office. And how could it be executed better? The oil is flowing faster than ever … whoops … maybe not. Well, the people are celebrating … whoops … those are riots for jobs. Well, American companies are cleaning up … cool … that one holds. :slight_smile:

Help him, won’t you.

What? If this is b/c of Bush Sr’s policies how come liberals say everything was so peachy keen during Clinton? That statement is a cop-out and you know it. BTW the economy is improving and jobs are increasing so is that b/c of Bush Jr? No. Don’t forget that the recession began when Clinton was in office but I’m not blaming him, that would be ignorant. The people who run the stock market and the media have more effect on our economy than whatever president is in office.


Afghanistan:
They hit us below the belt plain and simple

“They”? Was it Afghanistan or al Qaeda? And was it Afghanistan or the ruling Taliban that supported al Qaeda? Accuracy is everything. [/quote]


That’s just dumb and nit-picking. It was Al Queda, allied w/ the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan. NO DOUBT as to the need to go there and kick a**


Iraq:
It is about time we got rid of Sadom,

But that wasn’t the reason for war; the reason so many American lives have been lost. The U.S. rushed into war because Iraq alledgedly posed an imminent and immediate danger to the American way of life ("nuclear materials! nuclear materials!). Last I checked, really old mortar shells found dumped in what used to be a swamp, filled with WWI-era chemical agents you can concoct with grocery store ingrediants, doesn’t pose an imminent threat to the “American way of life”. If it does, we really need to review how we’re spending our Defense budget, imo.[/quote]

Ok first intelligent thing you’ve said so far. I am still disturbed and dissapointed that Bush never showed blatant information as to ties w/ Al Queda or WMD. However that being said everybody knew that his regime slaughtered innocent people and had at least chemical weopons and probably bio, and might be working on nukes. Even the UN thought so but they could never find anything. Gee imagine that, second time around and Iraq didn’t know how to hide there stuff, come on. There scientists admitted to it, so where is it? Try finding a few trailers and weapons dumps buried in an area the size of California and get back to me.


France just doesn’t want us there because they are afraid that we might discover they were supplying banned merchandise and weapons.

This assessment is based on … what? Please elaborate. And make sure you don’t make the same kinds of mistakes you make below.

It well known that the three countries most against removing Saddam was France, Russia and Germany. Why? Because it’s not as well known and certainly was never documented as well as reasons not to go to war that all three are owed billions by by his regime for weapons trading and if Sadam was to go, guess what they loose all that money. Here’s a link and there’s plenty more on the net: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2EC41E07, http://makeashorterlink.com/?H3FC22E07\

Figures vary, but Iraq owes France around $3 billion
$40 billion to Paris Club members
$80 billion to Arab governments.
Germany as much as $4 billion
Russia anywhere from $3 billion to $8 billion.
China 1 billion.

Shhhhh , don’t tell anyone the REAL reason why they were all opposed to going to war.



Even if they did support us, we would just have to come to their rescue anyway… French revolution, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, need I say more.

Actually, you really should say more. Either to try to make some worthwhile sense, or to give everyone a bigger laugh![/quote]

I agree, I have no idea what he is trying to say, but I’m certain it’s not germane to this discussion. I said a lot of what he said is correct; I didn’t say he was that bright, this statement illustrates that.

  • French Revolution? We came “to their rescue”? huh? Educate me (this should be interesting).

More stupidity

  • It may be worth remembering that the U.S. attempted to stay out of WWI and WWII. Our own interests brought us into those fights (in addition to a few well-placed, historically-documented lies - eg the “noble lies” of FDR.)

Don’t forget allowing Pearl Harbor to happen too right? You conspiracy people kill me, how sad.

  • wrt Vietnam, we sure rescued the French at Dien Bien Phu, didn’t we? We rescued them from the disgrace of living as cowards; so we ignored their request for assistance and let them die! Way to go, Eik! And after the French left in 1954, the U.S. made a mad dash to help them in 1963, right? hahahaha Next time, we should have our rescuers drive across the Pacific; taking boats and planes takes way too long.

*F em, I’m glad we never helped them. They were fighting for colonialism of Vietnam, not against communism. Oh how those South Vietnamese were so better of after the north took over. Thanks antiwar people for undermining efforts and prolonging the conflict, just like now. See attachment


Next I think we need to look at Saudi:

But Saudi Arabia is our friend. We sell them lots of pretty weapons! We helped keep an autocracy in power while the poor masses became more poor; while the undecideds made a decision to join the terrorists because the U.S. was helping to keep them oppressed by supporting the ruling class. Not Saudi Arabia! NO! hahahahaha[/size]


This is true and sad why we really need to get off oil dependency. Ding, ding you are correct, double standard here, but at least they never gassed anyone or invaded another country.

And the fact that most of the terrorist are Saudi nationals.

Yeah. And we sure made Iraq pay for that! Now if we do something about Saudi Arabia, how we going to be able to blame someone else for the acts of more Saudi nationals? Why not leave the Saudi’s alone, wait for another terrorist attack, and invade Cuba! or hell, let’s invade France!

France doesn’t harbor terrorists, they’re just greedy like everyone else.


Like it or not as the wealthiest, and most powerful country we are the police for of the world.

Which type of police are you suggesting we should be? The “good” ones or the ones that do baaaaad things with their batons behind closed doors.[/quote]

Wait I thought the UN was to be the world’s police. Oh yeah I forgot they are a joke.


Some of the decisions that the Bush administration have made in the past 3.5 years may have been rushed and could have been executed in a more acceptable fashion.

Well, according Paul O’Neil, this certainly doesn’t include the invasion of Iraq; that was being actively planned within a couple of weeks of Dubya getting sworn into office. And how could it be executed better? The oil is flowing faster than ever … whoops … maybe not. Well, the people are celebrating … whoops … those are riots for jobs. Well, American companies are cleaning up … cool … that one holds. :slight_smile:[/quote]


Help him, won’t you.[/quote]

I’m not helping anyone, just calling them the way I see them. At least I have been objective you should try it more. See my attachment. BTW too much damn code too keep up with.

A must read for all.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-11-16-1.html

I don’t know what liberals say and don’t care. I don’t recall saying I agreed with Clinton’s economic policies, only that these policies started with Bush Sr. After all, Clinton supported NAFTA as well; among other things I don’t like. The statement is only a cop-out if you assume I’m liberal, supported Clinton and thought everything was “peachy keen”. Read what I write and respond to it, not what you think I believe.

As for the “improving” economy… time will tell, and you’re stating it with certainty. Fact is, economic employment indices that were up in Oct and Nov were recently revised downward. The claim of 150,000 to 180,000 jobs added per month got a swift kick in the teeth with the December report that indicated ONLY a 1,000 jobs were added (which will also likely get revised - upward I hope).

afaic, the wealthy and Wall Street, who raked it in with the last tax cut, are not the American economy. A higher stock market and improved yacht sales don’t cut it, afaic. American’s are the American economy. When we see steady growth in the job market and employment data that’s trustworthy and includes those who’ve simply given up or lost their benefits and are now uncounted, THEN i’ll start believing the American economy is improving. Pointing to the increasing wealth of the rich only means Bush has done well for his corporate handlers. Truth is, some studies accounting for “drop-outs” place unemployment near 10%. Who knows. But I do believe what I see, and it isn’t that pretty.

Agree. But “plain and simple” seem to be this person’s middle name.

First intelligent thing? Maybe if you didn’t make assumptions wrt what I’m thinking, and paid more attention to what is said… (See above)

“However”

How do so many Bush-supporters ignore the lies so easily? No one I know ever claimed Saddam wasn’t worth getting rid of (although chickenhawk patriots like to wrap the American flag around themselves and cry “It’s mine! It’s mine”). I obviously feel that a dishonest president is a bigger problem than you do (see “impeachable offense”; I think neo-conservatives have misplaced it near “blowjob between two consenting adults”).

I didn’t like Clinton’s word games, and I don’t like Dubya’s flat-out lies. If he was going to send Americans to war to die, he should have been honest about the reasons why. If the evidence was 98%, it should have been called 98%. Not 100%. If it’s to establish a democracy to bring stability to the region, then he should say so and trust the people he’s supposed to represent to let him lead them. If you can’t trust the president to tell the plain truth in matters of life and death, how can he then be trusted on anything else?

As for Iraqi scientists, they admitted to … what? Plans to maybe someday maybe make something that might…? This war wasn’t about plans or pie-in-the-sky programs. It was about weapons of mass destruction. Massive amounts ready to rain destruction on the American way of life at any moment. Things that kill. Tons and tons of it. Doom and gloom. The American heartland at risk! Not schematics on a piece of paper.

afaik, the scientists have yet to lead anyone to anything of real value (and a piece of a part of a centrifuge buried in a back yard for a decade meant to extract weapons-grade uranium for use in a non-existent weapons platform leaves a little to be desired, don’t you think?).

As for “Try finding a few trailers and weapons dumps buried in an area the size of California and get back to me”, if I claimed to know where something was one day, had satellites watching it til the next, when I went in, I’d find it. According to the reports I followed, we found most all the things Powell circled in his little “no doubt” pictures… they turned out to be nothing. Then we went on to the secondary sites… more nothing. I guess now they’re just out there digging in the mud.

So what have we really found?

{insert scary music here}

  • Mobile bioweapons labs → {blooper music here} hydrogen-producing units used for artillary balloons (orig built by the British it perhaps!).

Huge stores of chemical weapons → {blooper music here} a few rusty mortar shells filled with WWI-vintage chemicals, circa 1987. And lots of fertilizer and a few places where the ground soil looks like (key word “looks”) like uranium “cake”.

Warehouses filled with tons of WMD → {blooper music here} bombed out vacuum cleaners that no longer pose a threat to dirty floors!

Terrorist bioweapons site in the north → {blooper music here} a TV exclusive that reminded us all of Geraldo Rivera opening up an empty tomb and looking stupid; not a naughty molecule in sight.

Evidence from sources “on the ground” → {blooper music here} sources that left Iraq in 1992 or earlier based on Rumsfeld’s own comments!

American people told there was “no doubt” → {blooper music here} almost a year in Iraq and still “considerable doubt”.

What a miserable track record.

Maybe there’s something there. Maybe a few more WWI-quality mortar rounds rusting in the ground since the Iran-Iraq War will get dug up. But is that what our soldiers are dying for? Is that what we bought for $100,000,000,000.00 in taxpayer dollars and over 500 American lives?

So what? Of course they wanted their money. That’s good capitalism. Besides, the U.S. sells weapons as well; even to rogue states (in secret and in violation of U.S. law). The issue here is the comment “banned merchandise and weapons” (like the stuff we gave Iraq in the mid-80’s). I was asking for an elaboration of that comment. Feel free to elaborate for him/her.

You might have been better off saying “some of what he’s says I agree with”.

Better include ultra-conservative Pat Buchanan in “You conspiracy people”. He’s the source I’m quoting wrt “noble lies”. And the documentation appears to hold up. Want the link to our buddy, Pat? Oh well, here it is anyway:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patnakedforgery.htm

You should read up and not rely just on some guy’s opinion just because he makes a decent point regarding the casualty count. From what I’ve read, the war was already lost by the time Johnson sent troops in. Kennedy’s policy was “limited involvement” from the start; that and support for an arrogant ass who turned average Vietnamese against both himself and the U.S. (can’t feel sorry for him getting assassinated in the end). This had little to do with the anti-war movement in the U.S. afaic; that war was nothing but a bunch of lies from the beginning - lies that caught up with the politicians.

Give the French credit, they bailed on Vietnam because they didn’t believe the U.S. could do anything… and they were right. The hippies may take credit, but the French know better.

No, they apparently haven’t gassed insurgents trying to revolt and create a separate state. And no, to my knowledge they haven’t recently invaded another country that was alledgedly siphoning oil from their underground deposits. They just seem to be the country where all the terrorist funding comes from. I guess you’re saying they don’t deserve my scrutiny.

??? And Iraq was "harbor"ing terrorists? You mean the one old fart who killed one guy in the 70’s? hahahaha Hey, if you have new, reliable reports of Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda, please post them. We can pass them on to the Bush administration (they’re still looking). hahahaha

Yeah, a joke created by the U.S. and used so long as they do what we say. Right about now, it’s the U.S.'s claims that Iraq had WMD and links to al Qaeda that is making America look like a joke to the rest of the world. How embarrassing. A joke with a clown for a president and too many weapons for toys.

OK World… baton and anal-probe, coming right up.

Like you, I’m just calling them the way I see them. Feel free to point me to anything that isn’t objective. But make sure you read the words; don’t assume.

it states:

“Iraq owes some $40 billion to the > United States> , France, Germany, Japan, Russia and others in the 19-nation Paris Club. Other countries are owed at least an additional $80 billion.”

Why do you leave that out in your summary?

I always liked the argument that the UN is useless and weak so the US must “go it alone”

My thought was this: If the UN is a non-entity, then why were it’s “resolutions” quoted as justification for war? Ex.: “They were in violation of UN resolutions.”

Interesting “Nightline” last night. Koppel toured Baghdad with the “Baghad Blogger”. Some interesting developments mentioned that I’ve not seen reported in the Western media; specifically the coalition governing body rolling back civil rights to “the 4th or 5th century” a couple days ago. In other words, more in accordance with strict religious beliefs. The “Blogger” mentioned women’s rights will be severely restricted (as will his internet freedoms, I imagine).

It was also interesting to see Ayatollah Khomeini posters for sale on the street. The “Blogger” explained how that was extremely distressing for many Iraqi’s; how it was difficult to see this when these pictures used to be carried by Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. His concern is that Iraq is on the road to becoming a theocracy in the worst sense (ie like Iran). Either that, or there will be civil war.

For those interested, this report is worth checking out:

http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate

I should also correct myself. This comment I made: “a few rusty mortar shells filled with WWI-vintage chemicals” was based on initial and apparently inaccurate field tests. Appears those conclusions were premature. Latest tests indicate there is no mustard gas. Final, conclusive tests should be completed any day now; but it’s not looking good.

Interesting development with this 30-second spot. CBS refuses to air the winner because it’s too controversial (according to Moveon.org). I watched the clip, and have to admit it’s the most controversial 30-second spot in television history… no… the world! hahaha. What a lame ass reason.

Maybe the folks at Moveon have a point: CBS is playing partisan politics with public airwaves. Go figure.

Fewest presidential open Q & A sessions with the press: Boosh

WTF!?! it gettin worse every day. Someone slap the biatch awready.

That Q&A is a riot.

Notice McCain is breaking ranks with Republicans and calling for an independent investigation of all those “no doubt” intelligence claims. And Bush is trying to keep it all under his control. Pathetic. I really wish McCain would run for President…

In the meantime, other Republicans are pissed at Dubya over the rapidly increasing cost of Medicare. Hey, he promised! hahahaha Guess they didn’t buy enough stock in pharmaceuticals before the new cost estimates were released. Bet it goes up even more. Get in while you can, folks.

It’s like a “Divine Comedy” (not Dante’s, more like something John Water’s would do). On that thought, I could use a good comedy. Wonder if there’s a movie called “Boneless Chickenhawk Ranch”… or was that “Spineless…” or maybe “Clueless…” or …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1140114,00.html

Poor get poorer and rich get richer!!!