Bush Resume

[JesseV!!!]

Bush Resume

George W. Bush
Curriculum Vitae
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
o I ran for congress and lost.
o I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
o I bought an oil company, but couldn´t find any oil in Texas; company
went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
o I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that
took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the
Chicago White Sox.
o With my father´s help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
o I changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas
the most polluted state in the Union.
o I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in
America.
o Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions
in borrowed money.
o Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
o I became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000
votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
o I attacked and took over two countries.
o I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
o I shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
o I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12- month period.
o I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock
market.
o I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
o I am the first president in US history to enter office with a
criminal
record.
o In the first year in office, I set the all-time record for most days
on vacation by any president in US history.
o After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history.
o I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips than any other
president in US history.
o In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs.
o I cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any
president in US history.
o I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
o I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than
any president in US history.
o I set the record for the fewest press conferences given by any
president since the advent of television.
o I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution
than
any president in US history.
o I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to
intervene when corruption was revealed.
o I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused
to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
o I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
o I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind
o I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.
o I have made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any
in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The ´poorest´ multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, had a
Chevron
oil tanker named after her).
o I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
o I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any
market
in any country in the history of the world.
o I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and
military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the
will
of the United Nations and the world community.
o I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history
of the United States.
o I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any president in US history.
o I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the human rights commission.
o I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
o I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history.
o I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
o I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
o I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by
default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
o I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
o I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.
o My biggest lifetime campaign contributor, who is also one of my best
friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds
in
world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
o I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.
o I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under
attack
(and then lied about it, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force
One).
o I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
o I took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less
than a year made the US the most resented country in the world
(possibly
the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
o I, with a policy of ´disengagement´ created the most hostile Israeli-
Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
o I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the
people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to
world
peace and stability.
o I am the first US president in history to have the people of South
Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North
Korea.
o I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.
o I set all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding
for government contracts.
o I failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden ´dead or alive´.
o I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the
leaders
of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I
have no leads and zero suspects.
o In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully
prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in
the history of the United States.
o I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any
other president in US history.
o In a little over two years I created the most divided country in
decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil
war.
o I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less
than two years turned saw every economic category lose strength.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
o I have At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas
driving record has been erased and is not available).
o I was AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military during a
time
of war.
o I refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug
use.
o All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.
o All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.
o All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the
board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
o Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.



Any proof to discredit these statements are welcome.

http://michaelw.net/Articles/GeorgeBushsresumebyKellyK.html

[Amazin]

Jesse:

Quite an excellent post.But I doubt it will sink in.Most of the rednecks on this board don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

[JesseV!!!]

Aw, come on Amazin! There's hope! Don't give up the good fight buddy!

[Amazin]

They're either brainwashed or brain dead.Take your pick.I'll box em.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Amazin
Jesse:

Quite an excellent post.But I doubt it will sink in.Most of the rednecks on this board don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Amazin. Get a life. and while your at it, check e-bay and see if they'll sell you a set.

[Amazin]

Jessie:

See what I mean.

[Suff]

yawn

[Lefty]

Amazin, see you're still doing the name calling. But I understand, it's all you got.
Jesse, you're so far off base I don't know where to start...
How about here. Criminal record?
Of course he spent the surplus; he returned it to the people that were overcharged. The American taxpayer. That'll do for now. I forgot the rest of the nonsense. Read more later.
Oh, here's one. Executed a Federal Prisoner? I think a Judge, jury and the state of Texas did that.

[Lefty]

Here's one. I rendered the United Nations Irrelevant.
They are irrelevant. Yea.
Strongest economy when he took office? The economy, thanks to Clinton was slipping badly in his last quarter. But you know that.
You choose to ignore it.
A drunk driving charge when he was younger? So what. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't deny a victim her day in court by lying to a grand jury.
He's still chasing Bin Laden, but he wouldn't have to if Clinton had arrested him when the Sudanese offered him up; but Bill was so intent on getting his lower parts serviced he didn't know what was going on.
Dave S. wants more of your posts? Dave, what's with that?
This is tiring. Your post is irrelevant.

[Lefty]

Jesse, you seem to have some problems with memory: A lot of the stuff in your post that you blame on Bush can be attributed to 9-11 but it's incredible how many liberals forget that event.
Divided country? Percentagwise the country has rarely been more united.
Securities Fraud? Yes, all perpetrated during the Clinton adm and brght to light by Bush adm. well blow me down.

[ljb]

Jesse,
Nice breakdown, keep up the good work.
Last night's 20-20 had a nice segment on how the homeland security dept. (or is that Deloy's private security firm) are leaving the first responders high and dry. But of course we have to think of Lefty and his 30 pieces of silver.
ljb

[doophus]

JessieV:

I commend you on your edit/paste capabilities. Otherwise, a bunch of half-truths, lies, and damn lies with slight hints of truth interspersed.

Amazin':

If you intended to include me in your redneck remark, be assured that I will wear the "redneck" label as a badge of honor. I only wish there was a service medal for "redneck;" then, I could wear it on my chest, with my other service medals, at our next reunion. Hopefully, you intended to include me.

ljb:

Congrats!! At least you seemingly resist the urge to participate in Amazin's name calling.

Regards,


South Louisiana Redneck
___________________________________
Send the UN packing; mid-Atlantic preferably

[Suff]

Originally posted by doophus
JessieV:

=

ljb:

Congrats!! At least you seemingly resist the urge to participate in Amazin's name calling.



I also think Jesse makes some Valid Points. And I posted out here two weeks ago that I'm having serious doubts about this administrations intelligence capabilities. As far as being dishonest with the Congress and the the Public. I'm not prepared to say GWBII was. But I'm leaning that way. I'm giving them another 6 months. If todays condition is the same then. Then I have a serious problem with him sending 18 year old Americans to die for a Gangsta with a few oil wells.

If Iraq did'nt have a Viable, executable WMD program. We had no business being there. Theres rogue leaders and Massgraves in 50 other countries. I mean North Korea admits they have and are building Nukes. While Millions die of hunger every year. You don't need to be in the CIA to determine they are a more imminent threat.

I Know GWBjr inherited his intelligence community. But ultimately he is responsible for believing false or exagerated intelligence.

My issue was with Amazing, insulting virtually the whole board. His effort required two things.

1. a keyboard
2. no sack

[Larry Hamilton]

You didnt need any proof to post them, why would you need proof to discredit them. Where is that ignore button?

[Lefty]

Libs please read carefully. I'm getting tired of refreshing your memories. During the Clinton Adm Clinton and his intelligence said Sadaam had WMD's. So did United Nations. Demos agreed.
Now all of a sudden it's only Bush who said it. Bush did something about a tinhorn dictator who was a definite threat to the U.S. Our brave soldiers are there to not only defend our country but when we uncovered all those mass graves and torture camps and stopped the execution and torture of women and children as well as men, I was proud Bush had the guts to put and end to this evil regime.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Sufferindowns
I Know GWBjr inherited his intelligence community. But ultimately he is responsible for believing false or exagerated intelligence. My issue was with Amazing, insulting virtually the whole board. His effort required two things. 1. a keyboard
2. no sack

Suff: I feel the same way about the intelligence crap. If he doesn't fire Tenet by the end of the year, I am going to be very pissed. Bush inherited an intelligence community that was completely handcuffed for 8 years, guys like the crook Torricelli made sure of that. But he has had two years to beef it up. He made half ass gestures to do so. If Tenet doesn't come up with the goods soon......he better go away. I think Bush was probably reacting to the info they gave him and I don't think he is responsible for believing it, but I hold him responsible for not taking heads soon. Reacting appropriately to incompetence in your underlings is the first reponsibility of any administrator. It makes for a stronger organization in the long run. Basic management. In this governments highest levels we have seen this kind of crap get glossed over time and time again. If Bush lets that happen, he is no different than the rest.

The State Department needs to feel the axe too. Powell has done a terrible job over there and since he is a sacred cow, he cannot be touched. The people under him actually have campaigned against much of the administrations plans. They need to be chopped off. Colin Powell jerking around at the U.N. etc gave Saddam 8 mths to hide the crap and prepare for a war. That cost us lives. Bush went along with it for the sake of Tony Blair at Powell's behest. Shame on him. They need to find the goods, or cut some heads off. The head chopping would be the appropriate response. He better do it.

[JesseV!!!]

"Bush did something about a tinhorn dictator who was a definite threat to the U.S. Our brave soldiers are there to not only defend our country but when we uncovered all those mass graves and torture camps and stopped the execution and torture of women and children as well as men, I was proud Bush had the guts to put and end to this evil regime."

That is the ONLY thing he has done right. Surprised?

Oops. Except we now have the wrong troops on the ground. 1/2 right.

Why do you righties always change the subject to past presidents? Lets talk about our present one.
That's is what is important now.

How about the new world poll as to what they think of the USA? Yea, that's what we need. The whole world against us. This is going great!

JesseV!!!
Independent
Hawkish Dove...Just slightly to the left. After all, what's so bad about being social?

[LutherCalvin]

Gosh, and I voted for the guy!!!!

I must have been duped by the "conservative media."

[Tom]

Originally posted by JesseV!!!
[B
Why do you righties always change the subject to past presidents? Lets talk about our present one.
That's is what is important now.

JesseV!!!
Independent
Hawkish Dove...Just slightly to the left. After all, what's so bad about being social? [/B]

Youwould be funny if it weren't for the fact you are allowd to vote and breed.
Jesse, the problem about cutting and pasting is that you don't read the garbage you peddle. YOU liberals are the ones who keep bringing up the crap about Bush inheriting a great economy when anyone who can read and write knows that the FACT is we were in a recession befroe Billy-boy left office. Billy boy desecmeatd the armed forces and intelligence networks.
Many of the pieces of witt you pasted here are about things years ago.....how is that important now?
Jesse, my boy, take off the filters if you want to disccuss thing here.
BTW....here's s trivia question for you.....
When is the last time YOU posted anything about horse racing?

[Amazin]

Incorrect inteliience would be a nice scapegoat for a president with no intelligence.I told you guys before the Iraq war that the CIA and FBI had concluded that Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda and that Iraq's infrastructure was severely weakened from the first Gulf war and 12 years of sanctions had further debilitated a once thriving Iraq.In spite of these facts Bozo the Bush saw a crippled country as an imminent world threat.And you thought I was wrong.

Now Congress is launching an investigation and I see Suff and Ralph changing their tune.Point is Bush knows exactly what he is doing and knew Iraq was about as threatening as the ease with which it fell.If I knew it ,and all the so called liberals knew it,and the CIA and FBI knew it,Bush certainly did.Evidence?Look what he is doing with Iran.He'd love to take them out too,but seems to be searching for another catch all phrase like WMD that people like Lefty can parrot .Take a look at a map.Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.Coincidence that they are next?I think not.Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen as over 50 Americans have died since Bozo declared the war over in Iraq standing on the USS Lincoln.You forgot that one in his resume.

[PaceAdvantage]

a) I don't think Suff ever "changed" his tune. Point out past posts which completely contradict his current position.

b) "Thriving" Iraq?? When??? Under Hussein??? Yeah, they were so thriving, that they couldn't wait to pull down his statues once the shooting stopped. The only one who truly thrived under Saddam Hussein was Hussein and his family, not the general population of Iraq.


==PA

[Show Me the Wire]

JesseV:

One difference between our philosophies. You, and the rest of the libs, want a global village, I do not.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
a) I don't think Suff ever "changed" his tune. Point out past posts which completely contradict his current position.



==PA

I did'nt but even If I did........so what. I'm not Bill O'rielly from the "no spin zone". I'm michael dudley. A construction worker. I can change my mind on anything I want. And I owe no one a defense or explanation. I do what I want...I think what I want, and I believe what I want. If it all changes tommorrow. So what. I'm not a LIB or Conser. I feel no obligation to walk in lock step with anyones agenda. Land of the Free, baby.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Incorrect inteliience would be a nice scapegoat for a president with no intelligence.....
......Take a look at a map.Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.Coincidence that they are next?I think not.

That would seem to be two condtradictary stements, A......heh, heh, heh, Iran is between I-raq and a hard place! No fool, ,that W. He is playing the Middle East like a chessboard.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
JesseV:

One difference between our philosophies. You, and the rest of the libs, want a global village, I do not.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

Let's vote on Global Vilalge Idiot! :p

[Lefty]

amazin, actually Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and chose his words carefully so,as not to make an absolute statement that the war was over.

Jesse, why do I bring up Clinton? Because nothing exists in a vacuum. The past impinges upon the present and the future.
There's much to be done to clean up after Clinton. So we'll give Bush 4 more yrs after this term.

[JesseV!!!]

"You would be funny if it weren't for the fact you are allowd to vote and breed."
Very clever Tom. Thanx.

"Jesse, the problem about cutting and pasting is that you don't read the garbage you peddle."
I copied and pasted AND left the link...What? lol

"YOU liberals are the ones who keep bringing up the crap about Bush inheriting a great economy when anyone who can read and write knows that the FACT is we were in a recession befroe Billy-boy left office."
Why did it take them 2 years to announce it then? Yea, right. nuther lol



Billy boy "desecmeatd" (lol here) the armed forces and intelligence networks. Many of the pieces of witt you pasted here are about things years ago.....how is that important now? Jesse, my boy, take off the filters if you want to disccuss thing here.
Wrong again Tom. No one has ever got any government employee to break a sweat. When, in the last 35 years, have we had top notch intel?

"BTW....here's s trivia question for you..... When is the last time YOU posted anything about horse racing?"
Right after the Belmont. Go to DRF,see Smullen won't give up.
Geeez, It's like trying to listen to hannity, Limpbaugh or liddy here. Tons of spin. TONS! lol b/c it's hurts when I cry.

Lefty in Idaho,
See the polls. Hey? know why Bush runs us into debt? No money left to investigate him!
Make a Clinton resume, OK?

at the wire,
Go ahead be unsocial. It does a world of good.
GGgeeeeeeeezzzzz:) Just makes me cringe.

[Tom]

Actually, it was announced before the White House was liberated.

[JesseV!!!]

Tom,
I believe that was called a down turn.
No big deal until consumer confidence took a dive.
You know well that was no depression.
Spin?

[BuRn]

General thought about Bush in Europe (particularly in Belgium)

A looser, a real weeny who cries to his mommy when he can't defend himself (and this is not only Bush, but for most of the "hawks" of the US gov.)

As you know, there's this law in Belgium which acts against war crimes.

You know : some fools complained about Bush and Bush sr. And what is the reaction of the US gov. : you can't do that.

So US gov. finds it can act against so called dangers for the world, it can act against regimes who don't respect human rights, it can fight a war without support of most other countries in the world (however, i did find the last war a legitimate one). BUT : no one has the right to put the US government in question. Because as they say : "you are with us, or you are against us". With other words : if you don't dance the way the US government wants it to, you risk sanctions from the US.
If the US government is as human as they say, and as honest as they want their own ppl want to believe and if the US rights system works as good as they say. Why the hell are those ppl then affraid of false accusations being made by one or another against the president or other important US ppl? They know that accusations as this are immediately put throug to the US, where a US court can handle it. So there is no problem at all. But still they are scared as hell they would be convicted. Why?
As it seems, for the US government, there's only one opinion which counts : theirs. There's only one who is right : they. And there's only one group who is allowed to possess and control information : the puppet masters behind the scene (lol, no not the president and the ppl you see on TV)


In most European's eyes, this is the same as forbidding to have another than a black/white opinion. It is the same way as the way Saddam ruled his nation : you act as the government wants it, otherwise you get sanctioned. The difference is that US puppetmasters (part of the government) knows very well how to play this game and how to masquerade this as actions of self defence or actions in behalf of the world peace's sake.

I am sure that if some list of recently carried out black ops would reach the net, or become public in some way, your eyes would pop out of your heads with awe. As such for the list of multinationals and private persons carrying out there influence of government decisions in behalf of their own profit (CNN?, AOL? How many money did those groups made on the 2 gulf wars? You won't make me believe that a news station which can gain such a lot of money in a conflict will give objective information. It is even so that a lot of the news of CNN appearing on European TV screens, is simply not broadcasted in the US. Why? Could citizens otherwise partly see what's going on and choose for a new president on which news stations/multinationals have less influence?)


Right at this moment, the US is not, repeat NOT lead by politicians who have the welfare of their citizensin mind. It is ran by big internationals and religeous fanatics.

1. Big internationals : lots of oil firms, and not to forget the weapon industry. I don't think you can point at a single one important (meaning having significant influence on government decisions) which has no interest in one or another firm. As a lot of the sponsorship for the run to the presidential elections is coming from those firms, it is no wonder they partly control/influence US's military decisions and/or black ops.

2. Religeous fanatics. Out of experiance I know US ppl are very sensitive to the word of God. In no other country you find such a lot of "churches". I mean, hear in Belgium, you only have only a couple : Catholic, Protestant,...

I also know that it is impossible for someone to become president if he does not go to church on a regularly basis or who does not believe it the Bible at all.

It is only a couple of days ago I saw a documentary handling the "roadmap to peace" for the Mid East. In this documentary it was told that a group of more or less fanatic Christians (don't remember the exact name of the grouping) allied with the Jewish to be able to put more pressure on the government to NOT execute this roadmap.
The way they were talking was like every word in the Bible was as thruth, it was as if they were not aware that these stories told in the Bible have to be seen as lessons in humanity for one part, and as inherited stories from ancient civilizations on the otherhand. They see Israel as a country which is given to the Jews by the hand of God. They do NOT take into account that before they were living there and it was given to them by the UK and US (yes, yes) some decades ago, Israel simply did not exist. Even in the ancient times, as told in this same Bible, it is said that the Israeli ppl arrived over there and declared it as the promised land. But what about the ppl who originally lived there? What if the God of those ppl said it was promised to them too?
With other words : this allience (!!!!!!and I do NOT, repeat NOT mean ALL Christians or ALL Jews!!!!!!!), trying to blow up the roadmap to peace for the mid east, is supported in general with ppl who have the same fundamentalistic way of thinking as do those guys who flew into the WTC. The only difference is : they are not so naive and know very well how to camouflage their message. And : they believe in another God. As everybody knows, this allience has a LOT of influence on decision taking as part of the funds for the presidential election campaign comes from... the US Jewish community... Oh yeah baby...

So if you read this, is it a wonder that some people start to question the real goals of the government? Don't think so. Is it a wonder that the so called "Old Europe" which did go through several wars, starts to question the goals of the US? Those countries of the "Old Europe" recognize some symptomes from mile ahead. And I guess everybody knows which "symptoms" I am talking about.

Believe me : The US will be stunned with awe if they think that this "Old Europe" consists of a bunch of states of "weasels" as they call it. I hope that when taking certain decisions they take into account that in fact, Europe is NOT a bunch of states of "weasels". It is a sleeping giant, sleeping because of being tired of centuries of war, trying to find some peace. I hope for the US they take into account that Europe is more than just France, Germany, Belgium, Spaign and the UK. I hope they realize that they won't have the support of the UK forever, as the UK in fact also needs Europe. In fact, if you take a good look at the world map, you see Europe will be as big as the US, a group of states who has learned through the centuries how to handle war, and how to protect itself.

Conclusion :
As it is right now, the president of the US is only a title for a poor man who is a puppet on a lot of strings. The real decisions are taken by other ppl who remain in behind the scene, and execute their influence spread over decades. The president never knows about lots of things really goin on behind the scene as his running time mostly is too short. He is just a personality chosen by ppl who is meant to represent them. In reality however, he just speaks out and carries out the decisions of the real puppetmasters. Those puppetmasters only think about one thing : gain, personal gain. But as the proverb says : greed comes before fall.
Currently, those puppetmasters have torn Europe in a difficult position. They'll have to take into account that as well as Europe needs the US, the US alse needs Europe, Russia and the Mid East for their economy. There are a lot of more factors on the world game as the cowboy mentality of "the good and the bad". A lot more!.

I sincerely hope for the US citizens they come to this same conclusion too and that they decide that they won't be ran by puppetmasters anymore. That they stop being naive, open their eyes and start seeing what's really going on in the world. If they do that, they'll see that the reality they are being presented right now is a reality created by the government, an ideal world in which their nation is the biggest, the greatest and the most powerful, while in fact none of this is true.

Believe me : the reign of those puppetmasters will be finished soon if they are not very careful.

GreetZ,
BuRn

[Tom]

Originally posted by JesseV!!!
Tom,
I believe that was called a down turn.
No big deal until consumer confidence took a dive.
You know well that was no depression.
Spin?

Not a deressionm not a downturn-a recession had started - the criteria was met - and billy was in office.

[BuRn]

Lefty,

If you say this, you probably can answer me this question :
If the Bush administration or the US government in general is so concerned about human rights, why then do they NOT intervene in Africa? In Africa there is war already for some decades. There are far more mass graves than you'll ever find in the whole Mid East ? I guess : one reason : they cannot gain anything there, so those people can die without them giving a damn about it.

Don't misunderstand me : the US did a marvelous job taking away the Taliban and the Saddam regime. It only worries me that the reasons why they did it are far more different as they want to make believe you US citizens and the rest of the world.
The reasons why are reasons for which they could attack any state : resources, money and power + Israel. These are reasons which easily could spark off a WWIII and that's the real reason why the "old Europe" wanted to wait a little more because this region knows what war is and knows what can spark off a global war and also know how to prevent it.

And to put you with both feet onto the ground : it was NOT Bush who decided to go to war. It was the Bush administration who did take this decision. With other words : lots of ppl having lots of interests of keeping oil resources under US control, out of Mid-East, Russian and European control. Lots of ppl having lots of interests in having a strong Israel (or dreaming about a strong Israel -> see my previous post, ya know that Jewish community can put lot of pressure on the US Gov.)

So plz tell me, if the reasons for the Iraq war are really those they want us to believe, why do they only intervene in the Mid East, partial based on false reports and illusions and why do they not intervene in other parts of the world, where it would cost the US citizen less tax money to bring peace over there. Tell me why if you can.

GreetZ,
BuRn

[Tom]

I like the ring of that....."You are either with us or against us."
Consider that an invitation...or a warning. You are right about one thing-we don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
But W a weenie? Can't defend himself? Get a life. Go ask the Tailban or the Republican guard who is weenie. That great Iraqi army - pretty much a bunch of little girls, little chickens, like the rest of the fundamentally-insane arab world. Little girls. So who are your heros...the palestinien homacide bombers? Hamaas?
The cows farting in New Zealand contribute more to the world than Europe. Europe is a joke. A sleeping giant????HAHAHAHAHAHA.....didn't you ppl learn in the 30's that when you bow down to dictators you only get laid out over a table with your pants around your ankles? Where were the dutch when Hitler rolled over europe? Turning in Ann Frank?

[ljb]

Burn,
These right wing war mongers just don't get it. They think they can bomb the world into compliance. Hopefully we can out the lot of them next election and start mending the world. If not we can expect a lifetime of wars and terrorism.

Israel has been bombing Palestine for years and what have they got? Daily suicide bombers.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Burn,
Hopefully we can out the lot of them next election and start mending the world.


Who put the U.S. in charge of mending the world? The world is responsible for itself. All nations are culpable for their actions. It is this type of lib thinking which leads down the dangerous road, the slippery slope.. I know what is best for you, the world, and I am going to mend it. I am tired of all this no one is responsble for their actions nonsense and the I know what is best for you idealogy, so I am going to tell you what to do.

Forget the the global village stuff and like the saying goes mind your own p's and q's.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Burn,
These right wing war mongers just don't get it. They think they can bomb the world into compliance. Hopefully we can out the lot of them next election and start mending the world. If not we can expect a lifetime of wars and terrorism.

Israel has been bombing Palestine for years and what have they got? Daily suicide bombers.

You libs don't get it-YOU guys had 8 years of Clinton-the formative years for Al Qeda-they continued to grow, to get braver, to larn more, to dig in more, to spread more lies around the world. YOUR way dosen't get rid of terroism-it feeds it.
The only thing we can do is destroy the enemy - ALL of the enemy. How many terror attacks happenend during sick-willy's watch? How many Americans died while that cockraoch was getting his rocks off in the oval office? Mend the world? Even YOU can't be THAT stupid. I might have guessed some euro-trash lacky shows up running down our country and YOU would be right on the bandwagon backing him up.
Why is it empty-headed gas bags condenm Israel when they strike back in defense yet you always tolerate some camel-humping scum buckets straping on a bomb and walking into a store or getting on a bus? Your tolerance is frankly sickening to me. And ya know what? WE aren't going to take it anymore-we have a president and staff with balls and the will to do what is necessary. You just stand it, can you? I would love to hear your slick little remarks if your brother or father or sister were senselessly murdered by the palestinien dogs. Or if your mother were in a store when a bomb went off. I honestly hope YOU someday get to see/experience a terror attack in person-maybe that would knock some sense into that head of yours.
Although, judging from your posts here, that seem unlikely.
I bet you observe a momonet of silence every Sept. 11th, in memeory of your fallen heros?????

[Lefty]

BuRn, your post smacks of the bilburg or trilateralist nonsence. Methinks you are a conspiracy nut.

Jesse, Clinton's resume pretyy clear to all but a few notes: Not a Rhodes Scholar cause he never graduated Oxford. Most of his friends went to jail covering for him, including the Govenor of Arkansas who succeeded him. Raised taxes even on Social security. Tried to hijack one seventh of the economy with his National Health Plan. If it had succeeded i'd still be in line waiting to get my hernia fixed. A womanizer and most likely, a rapist.
Did business with the Chinese and got illegal campaign funds, sold us out, put us 10 yrs closer with a possible war with the Chinese. So busy getting his whistle blown he was "blind" to the dangers of bin Laden and turned down 3 offers to arrest him. Did nothing about the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and The World Trade Center.
More executive orders than any other president. A proven liar.
Impeached President.

[Amazin]

PA quote:
" b) "Thriving" Iraq?? When??? Under Hussein??? Yeah, they were so thriving, that they couldn't wait to pull down his statues once the shooting stopped. The only one who truly thrived under Saddam Hussein was Hussein and his family, not the general population of Iraq."

PA

Here's a little info regarding your statement:

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq enjoyed a high standard of living, with the majority of the population in a relatively wealthy 'middle class'. With low infant mortality and high levels of education and access to potable water and sanitation, Iraq was 67th on the UNDP Human Development Index in 1990. But Iraq's prosperity and standard of living were highly dependent on the benefits of oil revenues. When these revenues were curtailed, Iraq rapidly plunged into a situation of scarce food, water, healthcare and education; a collapsing or destroyed infrastructure and economy and, consequently, a deepening humanitarian crisis. By 1999, Iraq had fallen to 125 on the UNDP Human Development Index.

http://www.careinternational.org.uk/news/what_do_care_think/reports/victims_of_war/iraq.htm

Sufferin Quote:

"My issue was with Amazing, insulting virtually the whole board."

My insult only applied to rednecks when I said:
"Most of the rednecks on this board don't know their ass from a hole in the ground."

Obviously the whole board is not made up of rednecks as this thread has shown. Bush and his followers exhibit an obviously offensive redneck
mentality.

[Show Me the Wire]

Interesting to see that ljb and the rest of his like-minded group ignored my request to explain the position of "Who put the U.S. in charge of mending the world?". Any non-redneck out there care to answer?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[BuRn]

Show Me The Wire,

I am a non-redneck, I am from Europe.

Fact is : NOBODY did put the US in lead of the world. It is the US itself who manoeuvred itself in that position after years of smart global politics.
If it hadn't been for the result of WWII (let's say if it had been another country who invented the atomic bomb), the US should not be where it is right now.

- It is not a bad thing to have a nation from which it is worldwide known that they are very powerful. However : if that nation starts to react the way it does now (not allowing ANY critic on it's current way it's acting), it worries me.

- Secondly it worries me that a powerful nation as the US's politics are heavily influenced by industry and religeon. I guess that is something that Lefties and Righties have to aggree.

GreetZ,
BuRn

[BuRn]

Tom,

But W a weenie? Can't defend himself? Get a life. Go ask the Tailban or the Republican guard who is weenie. That great Iraqi army - pretty much a bunch of little girls, little chickens, like the rest of the fundamentally-insane arab world. Little girls. So who are your heros...the palestinien homacide bombers? Hamaas?

1. Yes, Bush is a Weenie cauz he dances the way ppl like Rumsfeld etc... are telling him to dance. Ppl like Rumsfeld have far more experience and insight it global politics already only becauz of the time they are into politics.
For the rest : if you give me some hours, I can sum up some quotes of Bush in which he shows the only thing he does is speaking out learned by heart texts if it is about governement decisions.

2. About Europe : really guys, it is time you realize that the help of US during WWII was very welcome indeed. BUT : that's something which is history and debts have been paid off. It is a new era now, new generations coming up who don't care anymore about what happened in the past.
Fact is : last time, in case of Iraq (NOT in case of Afghanistan), Europe was divided mainly because of the attitude of the UK and Spain. Most countries who decided for immediate war against Iraq were countries who are only the newest members of the European Union and countries with a weak economy, who fear that economic sanctions from the US against their countries could be catastrophic.
But with that : "fear for economic sanctions", it's all said. Take away that kind of fear and the gulf war was the last war US started without going through the security council or the approval of the NATO.
I mean : you have a partnership in an organization to act the way the organization wants it. You do NOT go on a partnership if it is only to rely on the organization when it fits your politics, and to put that organization at the sideline if this suits your new ideas.

The US government should realize they are NOT the only powers in this world. They are as powerful as the world allows them to be. Whatever way you turn it : take away the world and internally, the US economy would collapse. With other words : if Europe decides to follow it's own course and decides to put US economy aside (as they (U.S.) are taking measures against some countries anyway), US can dig it man.

GreetZ,
BuRn

[Lefty]

BuRn, Welcome to U.S. but it doesn't sound like you're happy here.
Bush a weeny is a joke or the stupidist comment i've ever heard or read, as it were. Finally a President who takes action when the evil of the world plots against us.
Weenie, Clinton was the weenie. The man talked and talked did nothing but raise taxes get in bed with the Chinese communists and let the evil flourish, grow strong until it felt confident and invincible enough to mount a cowardly attack on us on 9-11.
But it didn't count on Geo. W. Bush. Evidently it believed the ridiculous assertions of our leftist media and democrats that he was weak and stupid. I guess they found out differently; now they are on the run.
Africa? They pose no threat to our national security. That question would have been better asked about Clinton. He engaged us in Bosnia while they were no threat to us so why didn't he get us involved in Africa?
This nation was built on the concepts of freedom and religion by our founding fathers so it's weird you are so worried about our religion. However our varied religions in this country do not preach the concept of cowardly attacking a peaceful nation because of their religion. Can't say that about the perpetrators of 9-11.
Welcome to the U.S., but if the place doesn't suit you, well, you know the way out.

[Show Me the Wire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuRn
[B]Show Me The Wire,

I am a non-redneck, I am from Europe.

Fact is : NOBODY did put the US in lead of the world. It is the US itself who manoeuvred itself in that position after years of smart global politics.
If it hadn't been for the result of WWII (let's say if it had been another country who invented the atomic bomb), the US should not be where it is right now.

{Not the question I asked. I know how the U.S. got to be the only super power. I asked "Who put the U.S. in charge of mending the world?. This is the problem I have with the big libs, they cannot answer that question, becuase nobady did. The libs do not understand these remarks and the support for this type of idielogy is U.S. intervention, only it is the type of intervention they deem good for the rest of the world and fits with the liberal agenda.

I suppose as an aside you would have wanted the Third Reich to have acheived atomic superiority first. I am sure the world would be a better place by now after the genocide of populations.}

- It is not a bad thing to have a nation from which it is worldwide known that they are very powerful. However : if that nation starts to react the way it does now (not allowing ANY critic on it's current way it's acting), it worries me.

{criticism is welcome if it is constructive. Calling names and and only opposing everything the Bush administration asks is not criticism, it is obstructionism. Criticism should have solutions attached, and idealogy backing ideals stating the U.S. is the world fence mender is not a solution, but a goal}

- Secondly it worries me that a powerful nation as the US's politics are heavily influenced by industry and religeon. I guess that is something that Lefties and Righties have to aggree.

{What nation does not act upon the influence of religion and industry, the French, the Spanish, the British? All nations act this way and that is way all nations are culpable for the state of the world.

If I were a European, I would be more leary of the liberal agenda, as they are the ones who know what is best for the world and that the U.S. should solve all your problems. BTW these are the same types that want to stop people from smoking in the privacy of their own homes. The irony should be too close to home for any European to embrace the liberal U.S. agenda as it smacks of an even bigger brother.}

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

BuRn, take away the world and the U.S. would collapse? Well, take away the U.S. and the rest of world would prob. end up enslaved.
A diaster happens ANYPLACE in the world and who is there with manpower and money? We are.
We are as powerful as the rest of the world allows us?
I think not, buddy.

[doophus]

Originally posted by ljb
Burn,
These right wing war mongers just don't get it. They think they can bomb the world into compliance. Hopefully we can out the lot of them next election and start mending the world. If not we can expect a lifetime of wars and terrorism.

Israel has been bombing Palestine for years and what have they got? Daily suicide bombers.

"Right wing war mongers?" Let's examine political parties and their war-mongering...

Woodrow Wilson, (D), 1913-1921

..1916 re-election slogan was "He kept us out of war." Entered WWI mid-year 1917 to make the world "safe for democracy." I can't guess the US KIA's for WWI if Wilson's "diplomacy" had failed; only 53,000 Americans killed in Europe (includes Belgium, I think.) Thank God for Democrats with "diplomatic" abilities!!

FDR, (D), 1933-1945

..Kept the US out of WWII, until after France fell and Pearl Harbor attack, by using legislation that continually proclaimed the "neutrality" of the US. Agreed to "give away" approx 1/2 of the European countries to the Russians. Thanks to FDR's diplomacy there were only 292,000 American's killed in WWII; how many Europeans died because of his diplomatic successes?

Harry S Truman, (D), 1945-1953

...A formally under-educated President who had enough common sense to know that Democrat diplomacy wouldn't work and many, many more GI's would be KIA if we invaded the Japanese mainland. Had the ballz to end the Pacific War by using the big, big cherry bombs.

...Korean War; 54,000 KIA. How many died after he ordered the military to "hold at the 38th parallel?" Truman was diplomatically impotent with the Red Chinese due to his decision to back Chiang Kai Shek. How many would have been KIA if his diplomacy had worked? (Note: Check out Ike's diplomatic success as described below.)

Dwight D Eisenhower, (R), 1953-1961

...Signed Korean War truce approx (6) months after taking office. Why did his "diplomacy" work when Truman's failed? Was it possibly due to his being a career military man? It couldn't have been "diplomacy;" Republicans don't have it!

...Quemoy/Matsu flare-up...No American casualties. This situation ended when the very latest USAF fighters were xferred to the area, and they began to make, for that time, super-swift flights over the Chinese mainland (purported to be so fast the Chinese radar couldn't track them, but that may be another part of the legend.) Probably just some more of that "right wing war monger's", I mean Republican, diplomacy.

JFK, (D), 1961-1963

...Bay of Pigs; Another fine example of the success of Democrat diplomacy.

...Vietnam; approx 46,000 KIA and another 11,000/12,000 died from accidents and natural causes. JFK increased US support for S Vietnam.

LBJ, (D), 1963-1969...

...Vietnam, (con't)....During the JFK & LBJ regimes, 1961-1969, the US military suffered approx 31,000 KIA. From '61 thru '65 there were 1,864 KIA; 1966 there were 5,008 KIA; 1967 there were 9,378 KIA; 1968 there were 14,594 KIA. Note after LBJ's re-election in 1965 the KIA's increased about 50% per annum thru 1968. Thank God for the Democrat's diplomatic abilities!

Richard M Nixon, (R), 1969-1974

..Vietnam, (cont'd)...1969 there were 9,414 US KIA; 1970 there were 4,221 KIA; 1971 there were 1,380 KIA; 1972 there were 300 KIA. The KIA's DECREASED from 35% to 78% each year of Nixon's presidency. Please, allow me to apologize to all you pacifists for Nixon's diplomatic screw-ups.

J(immy) C(arter), (D), 1977-1981

...Iranian hostage crises...Full-time diplomatic effort for over (1) year with no hostages released. What a diplomat??

George Bush the Elder, (R), 1989-1993

...Persian Gulf War; 148 US KIA; (100) hours duration; kicked the #4 military into oblivion; put together a large number of nations to support the effort; convinced Israel to remain on the side; didn't confiscate Kuwaiti oil afterward. Terrible diplomacy!!!

Billy-Boy Clinton, (D), 1993-2001

...Took great pride in emasculating the US military; lobbed a few Roman Candles when Marines were dragged thru the streets, embassies were blown to bits, New York buildings were bombed, former President's were threatened, needed to draw press attention to something other than his lies, more lies. A great diplomat!!

George Bush the Current, (R), 2001-Present

...War on Terrorism, 2002 and continues...182 US KIA in Iraq and growing; Unknown # of US KIA in Afghanistan but growing; no more Roman Candles and another Republican non-diplomat.

Let's do a bit of analyzing now...

If my addition is correct the Democrats, while in control of US foreign policy, were a party to approx 375,685 US KIA less the number killed during the (6) mos of Ike's tenure until the Korean War truce was signed.

The Republicans, while in control of US foreign policy, were a party to approx 29,909 plus the number KIA after Ike entered office until the Korean War truce.

Now, who are the war mongers? Who are the diplomats?

Had Moses, IMO, followed the orders given him, he would have occupied the entirety of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.



George

BTW: No cut and paste in the above; that will be the next coarse I take at the Right Wing War Mongers school.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by BuRn
Tom,


The US government should realize they are NOT the only powers in this world. They are as powerful as the world allows them to be. Whatever way you turn it : take away the world and internally, the US economy would collapse. With other words : if Europe decides to follow it's own course and decides to put US economy aside (as they (U.S.) are taking measures against some countries anyway), US can dig it man.

GreetZ,
BuRn

No, but it is the only super power, and that is what has Europe's undies in a bundle. Europe would collapse without U.S. support and economic trade. The U.S. has more capability to be self reliant than any European nation or the the whole European continent. Europe needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs Europe. This is not to say the U.S. would not suffer severe economic harm, but the U.S. would survive in the long run as it survived the cold war, which is more than can be said for its cold war counter- part.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

Perception is reality

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Sufferindowns
I did'nt but even If I did........so what. I'm not Bill O'rielly from the "no spin zone". I'm michael dudley. A construction worker. I can change my mind on anything I want. And I owe no one a defense or explanation. I do what I want...I think what I want, and I believe what I want. If it all changes tommorrow. So what. I'm not a LIB or Conser. I feel no obligation to walk in lock step with anyones agenda. Land of the Free, baby.


Quite an excellent reply....BRAVO

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by doophus
"Right wing war mongers?" Let's examine political parties and their war-mongering...

Another excellent reply....thanks!

[ljb]

Originally posted by Show me the wire

"Interesting to see that ljb and the rest of his like-minded group ignored my request to explain the position of "Who put the U.S. in charge of mending the world?". Any non-redneck out there care to answer?"
My reply would be, the same dudes that put us in charge of policing the world.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Originally posted by Show me the wire

"Interesting to see that ljb and the rest of his like-minded group ignored my request to explain the position of "Who put the U.S. in charge of mending the world?". Any non-redneck out there care to answer?"
My reply would be, the same dudes that put us in charge of policing the world.

Correct answer the liberal Democrats, after all that is who you want to win the next election to mend the World. At least your honest about the real interventionists.

Also see prior posts about Democratic about prior failed interventionist strategies instituted by Wilson and taken to heart by other Democratic presidents.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ljb]

Showme
You have to be kidding if you don't recognise the invasion and occupation of mideastern countrys as intervention.
One of Bush's campaign lies " I don't intend to do any nation building" What the hell is he doing in the mideast??
Hopefully you don't have your blinkers on like many of the right wing posters and can't see what is really going on here.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

I did not say it wasn't. I am giving you an example of what some people say is the pot calling the kettle black.

Liberal policy is also based on intervention, the catch is only intervention they deem correct , such as the goal for the U.S. to mend the world. The fault in the liberal ideolgy is their position is always correct, because they say so. Liberals cannot take criticism of any sort. After all how can someone be subjected to criticism if that individual is always right, or just exercising his rights. Other people have rights too, such as the right to disagree with the liberal left.

If I was European I would feel more threatened by statements like the above, than "you are with us or against us in the war against terrorism". This specific statement has a clear meaning, unlike the "U.S. needs to mend the world". The mending the world statement belittles the rest of the world"s nations as implicitcly saying they are incapable of acting in the world's own best interests. Typical liberal thought process of I know what is better for you than you do. Europe take heed.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

lbj:

I find it interesting the whole point of my prior post was overlooked, just to accuse Pres. Bush of lying and to point out I couldn't be that stupid to be fooled by Pres. Bush's lie.

This type of postioning will be the death knell for the Leftist Democratic party. People are tired of hearing obstructionist sentiments without any real substance for a solution from these left thinking know it alls.

I know, I am not stupid enough render myself incapable of disecerning the difference between domestic crime any foreighn attacks. This is in direct contrast of former Pres. Clinton's inability to distinguish dosmetic crime from foreighn attacks. Maybe he sees no difference due to his intellectual superiority.

However, I believe when a foreighn national commits an act of violence on the soil of the U.S. or against any U.S. interest in the world, based on furthering the foreighner's agenda such as theocracy it is an attack by a foreighn power, not a dosmestic crime. Timothy McVeigh's (sp) acts are domestic crimes.

I am surprised so many Clinton followers could not see the difference, must be the blinkers.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[JesseV!!!]

Tom,
Maybe I over stated a "downturn" lol Gotta chuckle! It all happened so fast!

http://www.elliottwavemarkettiming.com/dji/djilt.html


Lefty,
Pretty soft. Didn't effect me except the money spent on it.
Oh, if only Ken Starr was on W's a$$. I'd like to see him go after W's insider trading practices first.

[Amazin]

posted bt Doophus:

"Let's do a bit of analyzing now...

If my addition is correct the Democrats, while in control of US foreign policy, were a party to approx 375,685 US KIA less the number killed during the (6) mos of Ike's tenure until the Korean War truce was signed.

The Republicans, while in control of US foreign policy, were a party to approx 29,909 plus the number KIA after Ike entered office until the Korean War truce.

Now, who are the war mongers? Who are the diplomats?"

Your argument holds no water.Without arguing the details,your premise is that you judge whether a president is a war monger or not by the number of Americans that died.

Based on that premise, Bush could start another 6 Iraqi type wars lose under a thousand men total and be declared a man of peace from your historical perspective based on American casualties..Or put it this way,a few 8th grade school bullies terrorize the entire 6th 5th and 4th graders.(Or Iraq,Afhanistan and Iran for analogy purposes).They put them in the hospitals and they never suffer any casualties of course because they are much stronger.In your logic these bullies would be the good guys beause they didn't suffer any casualties on their side.Totally stupid argument.

The other factors you fail to take into consideration is the technological advances since WW1 and today resulting in far less American lives lost.We can kill thousands on the battlefield with computer guided weapons without risking one GI.They cant.

You also fail to consider the number killed on the other side as far as judging a war monger.You don't know how many Iraqis or Afghanistanies died do you?

Finally since presidential war monger cannot be judged by the number of Americans killed due to the reasons stated above,I suggest another criteria. Using war as a last resort.Obviosly Bush broke that promise to the American people with Iraq.

[ljb]

Showme,
Perhaps my use of the phrase mend the world was misunderstood by you. What I was trying to say is we need a democrat in there to repair the damages Bush has done. Originally it was just the good ol U.S. of A. that Bush had screwed up but he has been given enough free reign so now he has screwed up the entire world.
The big difference between Bush senior and junior is: The old man had enough brains/balls to shut down Rummy/Cheney and gang the kid is obviously lacking in one or both of these areas.

[Tom]

I will vote for YOU is you deccide to run.
Great post, unlike those by the three stooges.

As for Euope, I have a real problem taking any country seriously when they absolutley cannot defend thier borders or their people. Belgium would had pressed to stave off an attack by the NY State police, let alone the NY State National Guard. Belgium was speed bump to Hitler. These so-called countries in Europe, for the most part, are nothing more than badly managed large cities.
The WWII debts are paid? Guess again, waffle-breath-you don't repay the lives lost by OUR boys saving YOUR asses.
There is NOTHING europe has to offer that we cannot do without.
Like the man said, you are either with us or against us. Time to decide, boys.

[Lefty]

Actually, Bush is trying mightily to repair the damage to the world and U.S. done by Clinton. Clinton let the N. Koreans develop a nuclear technology. Clinton let one ofhis big contrbutors sell China a technology to launch satsllites. That same technology might be used to launch missiles in a few yrs. Clinton let bin Laden go. Clinton cut the budget to the military.
We need no more Clinton's or any other liberal democrat.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

I find it difficult to believe Pres. Bush screwed up the whole world. This is another example of liberal, I know it all thought process. The statement saying Pres. Bush is solely responsible for screwing up the world once again belittles all the nations of the world. Such a statement implies the rest of the worlds' governments are so ineffectual only the U.S. president determines if the world is screwed up or straight.

Any Europeans feel that Europe is so ineffectual that only the U.S. president determines the state of the world?

Me thinks my original interpretation of mending the world was reflective of the original intent.

Europe take heed for the liberals are coming for you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

SMTW, Actually, the liberals want to integrate with Europe and the rest of the world and have a" One World" govt.
They think then we'd all be the same people and we could just have one big "lovefest"
Vote Bush!

[Show Me the Wire]

Lefty:

I agree the liberals want a one world government. the global village idealogy, but I differ from you on one point. They do not want to integrate with the rest of the world, they want to control it. How do I know the liberals know what is best for me, because they keep on telling me they do.

They know what is best for you and the leadership of the Thrid Reich knew what was best for its populace. Not an absurd comparison, but a realistic one, once you start down the slippery slope.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ljb]

Show me sez
" I agree the liberals want a one world government. the global village idealogy, but I differ from you on one point. They do not want to integrate with the rest of the world, they want to control it. "
Would one of you folks please explain to me what is the difference between this quote and what Bush is doing now?

[ljb]

Show me sez
"
Me thinks my original interpretation of mending the world was reflective of the original intent. "
Show me, please do not try to put your thoughts in my mind. Your interpetration was wrong. I clarified my statement. If you are going to be too bullheaded to accept my clarification, there is no reason to continue this debate. And I have a hard time understanding your concern regarding the liberals taking over the world. It seems to me that is what Bush is attempting to do. Are you really to narrow minded to see this or are you just to proud to admit your wrong?

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Again the personal attack. Am I too narrow minded. In not one of my post did I personalize an attack. If all you have is personal attacks you are right this debate is over.

Are you too narrow minded to see the liberals back intervention also, when it suits their needs? I am deemd to put words in your mouth, yet it is you who make the judgments.

Your posts spout the line that the U.S. president controls the status of the world. That is an arrogant attitude spoken by ignorant people in that the only response consist of someone is too stupid, too narrow-minded, to see the truth. Before you change the world, look in the mirror and start with yourself. Learn to discuss civilly the issues, the facts and the differing opinions.

Yes, in this post I sank to your level, to communicate with you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality.

[doophus]

Originally posted by Amazin
Your argument holds no water.Without arguing the details,your premise is that you judge whether a president is a war monger or not by the number of Americans that died.
Amazin', when are you ever going to debate with facts? Your name-calling and invalid pronouncements won't win any debates on this board. With the facts I previously presented, I REST MY CASE.
The other factors you fail to take into consideration is the technological advances since WW1 and today resulting in far less American lives lost.We can kill thousands on the battlefield with computer guided weapons without risking one GI.They cant.
Shortly after entering any conflict we have had the technological advantage; nothing has changed. Our ability to kill people on the battlefield is the reason we're the only 8th graders in the entire world. I REST MY CASE, again!
You also fail to consider the number killed on the other side as far as judging a war monger.You don't know how many Iraqis or Afghanistanies died do you?
Okay, the US military numbers aren't allowed in this debate, but the "other side" numbers will be included? Let's start by reminding you of approximately 55,000,000 CIVILIAN casualties in the European theater only during WWII. Most of those were in Russia, but we supplied Russia with equipment, etc.; I guess that makes us an 8th grade bully. Incidentally, the lendlease equipment supplied Russia was and is to this day the US's largest foreign aid bill that was never repaid. While you're digesting the 55MM figure, I'll research the WWI, Korean, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, et al, civilian casualty figures. Better yet, why don't you research those numbers? You might actually learn something. I REST MY CASE, again and again!
Finally since presidential war monger cannot be judged by the number of Americans killed due to the reasons stated above,I suggest another criteria. Using war as a last resort.Obviosly Bush broke that promise to the American people with Iraq.
Again, you point out that AMERICAN KIA's aren't a consideration when deciding who is a war-monger and/or diplomat. Numbers do tell the tale whether military or civilian or friend or foe. But for the evidence supported by the numbers, the Democrats would have always been known as the foreign policy specialists--not the Repub's.

Also, did you happen to note the number of times that a war or skirmish began when under the Democrat diplomacy cloak vs. the Republican diplomacy cloak? Did you further note the number of times a war or skirmish was begun when Dem's were in charge but finished when Repub's were in charge? In the 20th century every war or skirmish that was begun by a Republican president was finished by that same Republican president.

To use your analogy, we are the ONLY 8th graders in a world filled with (2) 5th graders and the rest are 3rd and 4th graders. Our tenure as the world's bully would have lasted much longer except for the pimpled-pr*ck from Arkansas. His sellout to the Red Chinese should be tried at the Hague or Belgium, IMO.

I didn't previously mention Col Khadafy's change of heart, but the US military under Repub control did a magnificent job of converting that radical Islamist b*st*rd. And France refused to allow the US F-111's to overfly.

Amazin', except when you name-call, pull wild assertions from mid-air, refuse to present any data to support your argument, try to twist things when someone offers facts that refute your argument, you are a great debater. [Forgive me Gen'l Schwartzkopf (sp)]

IMO, you should request PA to change your user name to "Air-Head." At least all passers-by would be forewarned that you have absolutely nothing to offer.

I'm finished.

So Long, Airhead.


George

[Lefty]

ljb, the difference is Bush is not attempting to control the world, he is attempting to eradicate the terrorists from the world and make us as safe as possible from them. A tough job after following the screwups from the previous adm.
What you liberals want is to ally yourselves with the rest of the world against the U.S. give our riches to them that we americans worked hard for and put ourselves completely under the control of the U.N.
Bill Clinton and Madelyn Albright said they didn't want the U.S. being the only Superpower and the only ones with nuclear weapons.
To my mind these statements are akin to Treason.

[ljb]

Lefty said
"the difference is Bush is not attempting to control the world, he is attempting to eradicate the terrorists from the world and make us as safe as possible from them. A tough job after following the screwups from the previous adm.
Am i correct in assuming these terrorists are the same folks that Cheney and company were doing business with during the Clinton administration? I think so, must be they are of no financial value to Cheney and his gang hencthforth they can be disposed of now.
If Clinton did screw up, it was his allowing Cheney and his bunch of greedy compatriots to wheel and deal with Saddam, otherwise he did a damn good job as President.

[JesseV!!!]

"Clinton let the N. Koreans develop a nuclear technology."

lefty!!! Let?...Let?
You should now be able to state that Bush is now letting N.K. develop long range nuclear missiles. Will you?

I'm getting dizzy!!

[Lefty]

You are correct! "let" is a bad word. "Helped" is the proper word. i.e. gave them the wherewithall because they promised it would be for peace and not make weapons. DA Clinton blvd them cause his brain blood was stimulating another part of his body.
Bush is up against it with N. Korea cause the Geni is out of the bottle thanks to Clinton. AND, he did Name N.K. as part of the Axis of Evil remember, and you libs got mad? Now you dare say he's letting them have long range missiles that Billy Boy helped provide. Just how many ways do you guys want your cake seved?

Cheney doing bus. with Al Queda, Bin Laden? Prove it. I think you libs are so out of your minds with hatred for Bush you might just say anything.

[ljb]

show me sez" Your posts spout the line that the U.S. president controls the status of the world. That is an arrogant attitude spoken by ignorant people in that the only response consist of someone is too stupid, too narrow-minded, to see the truth. Before you change the world, look in the mirror and start with yourself. Learn to discuss civilly the issues, the facts and the differing opinions. "
I don't recall saying the U.S. President controls the status of the world. I did say our current president with his activities around the world is creating a mess that will take many years to clean up. Again you are trying to put words in my mouth. My only interest in change in this world right now is a regime change in the good ol U.S. of A. I apologise for asking if you are narrow minded, I was just trying to understand why you can't see what is really going on here. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
Why did the current administration lie to us about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's threat? I think it was because Bush needed a boost in the mid-term elections. Or perhaps it was just about the oil. Please enlighten me as to the real reason they lied to us.
Thank you

[ljb]

Lefty said
"Cheney doing bus. with Al Queda, Bin Laden? "
Who said Cheney did bus. with Al Queda Bin Laden ? Cheney is an oil man, his dealings were with Saddam.

[Show Me the Wire]

BTW, Jimmy Carter was the first to do business with Ussama Bin Laden. Jimmy gave Bin Laden and his group legitamacy, weapons, technical support and financial aid. Carter and his cabal of England and China felt their intervention in Afghanistan was justified and Pres. Regan continued the U.S. policy of doing business with Bin Laden.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Who said it must be a lie. Could it have been a mistake or a miscalculation? It could have been an act of omission and not an act of commission. Iraq had a weapons program and that fact is beyond debate. The current strength of the program prior to the invasion is what is unknown. It is possible the administration may have over estimated Iraq's capabilities, but that alone does not make it a lie. It is also possible Iraq hid or destroyed the evidence of its weapon programs strength. Lying is not the absolute uncontroversial fact as you put forth here on a daily basis.

Also, I do not wish to educate you or to enlighten you. However, it seems you want to educate me to your way of seeing. You want me to believe Pres. Bush is lying all the time (another example: your post about the recent Supreme Court decision) and he is screwing up the world. I wanted to discuss the facts, issues and opinions without name-calling or questioning mental capabilities.

In my opinion I think the two worst presidencies in modern history are by far Carter, inept in domestic and foreign policy, and Clinton very inept in foreign policies. Clinton failed to bring peace to the middle- east ( a stated goal of his), to be fair he is not the only office holder to fail in this regard, failed to see the terrorist threat (treated terrorism as domestic crimes), failed interventions (Mogadishu, Sp? and others), assisted China to become more powerful and submitted to the Saudi's use of oil as a weapon against the U.S. and Europe. My opinion of Clinton's term has nothing to do with his action with interns, but his record in foreign policy.

I also amazed you want me to believe Pres. Bush is a liar, yet I should not believe Clinton is a liar. The fact is Clinton is a liar, Clinton committed perjury. Perjury is telling a falsehood, a lie, under oath. This is Clinton's personal record, which is linked to his presidency, because he was in office at the time he committed perjury. Does this mean to me Clinton lied about everything? Of course not, but it makes me wonder about what and when he decided to be forth coming or not.

ljb if a glass is already full, there is no more space to add more, if you believe everything Pres. Bush does is based on a lie and any democrat past or future is pristine in comparison, so be it. Until the glass empties there is no room to add.

To conclude yes, I believe oil is an integral part of the plan, and if my perceptions are correct, I believe it is a masterful plan. No I do not want to explain what I perceive the strategy to be, because it would take up too much of my time and I do not care to justify my beliefs based on merely opinion.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Amazin]

Doophus:

You really don't have a clue about what you are saying,do you?You quote me as saying the following:

quote:Originally posted by Amazin
Your argument holds no water.Without arguing the details,your premise is that you judge whether a president is a war monger or not by the number of Americans that died.

Your answer for this paragraph was:


Amazin', when are you ever going to debate with facts? Your name-calling and invalid pronouncements won't win any debates on this board. With the facts I previously presented, I REST MY CASE.


I've looked with a magnifying glass to see where the name calling in that quote was,so when you find it let me know.BTW,it was you who namecalled me in your last message,calling me an airhead.

As far as facts in that quote,is it not a fact that you are saying you can judge a war monger by the number of Americans killed?So I verified your premise.How is this non-factual?The rest of your rebuttle is as absurd as this one.Responding to them is not worth the wear on my keyboard.

If you want to argue just for argument sake,find someone else.I've got better things to do. I don't care what you believe.But don't make up things and present them as facts.

[ljb]

Show me
Finally we find something thing we can agree on. Carter's presidency was bad if not the worse. However in the future our current president will most likely take honors as the worst president in history. He is really taking us down a primrose path. There are many world powers of the past who felt they could be the police men of the world now they are all second rate at best. Bush is leading us down the same path.

[ljb]

Show me said
"Who said it must be a lie. Could it have been a mistake or a miscalculation? It could have been an act of omission and not an act of commission. Iraq had a weapons program and that fact is beyond debate. The current strength of the program prior to the invasion is what is unknown. It is possible the administration may have over estimated Iraq's capabilities, but that alone does not make it a lie. It is also possible Iraq hid or destroyed the evidence of its weapon programs strength. Lying is not the absolute uncontroversial fact as you put forth here on a daily basis."

I and many others say it is a lie. Bush and his group said Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons and must be stopped now. This is not true. Being not true it must be a lie. The intelligence collected before the invasion was at best questionable as to the powers of Saddam. The administration decided to overlook everything that did not fit in there scheme of things.

Show me said
" Also, I do not wish to educate you or to enlighten you. However, it seems you want to educate me to your way of seeing. You want me to believe Pres. Bush is lying all the time (another example: your post about the recent Supreme Court decision) and he is screwing up the world. I wanted to discuss the facts, issues and opinions without name-calling or questioning mental capabilities.

I take this to mean you don't have an answer to my question. I would be pleased if I could educate you to my way of seeing. I don't think Pres. Bush lies all the time, just when it is convenient for him. As far as screwing up the world I have addressed that in another post. I have already apologized for asking you if you were narrowminded and don't believe I have done any other name calling in my replies to you.

Show me said
" In my opinion I think the two worst presidencies in modern history are by far Carter, inept in domestic and foreign policy, and Clinton very inept in foreign policies. Clinton failed to bring peace to the middle- east ( a stated goal of his), to be fair he is not the only office holder to fail in this regard, failed to see the terrorist threat (treated terrorism as domestic crimes), failed interventions (Mogadishu, Sp? and others), assisted China to become more powerful and submitted to the Saudi's use of oil as a weapon against the U.S. and Europe. My opinion of Clinton's term has nothing to do with his action with interns, but his record in foreign policy.

I have addressed Carters presidency in another post. Clinton had a difficult job because a group of very rich right wingers made it there goal to impeach him. This is too bad because in my opinion he could have been a much better president if he didn't have to spend so much time and energy fighting off this relentless attack.
I believe it was Richard Nixon who opened the doors to China. You may want to avoid bringing up China in this discussion because a lot of people are making a lot of money because of our trade deals with China. If I had to guess I would say most are probably from the right side of the aisle.
Clinton did put a stop on Milosovic and he is now in jail somewhere.
Show me said
" ljb if a glass is already full, there is no more space to add more, if you believe everything Pres. Bush does is based on a lie and any democrat past or future is pristine in comparison, so be it. Until the glass empties there is no room to add."

I don't believe everything Pres. Bush does is based on a lie, I don't believe any democrat is pristine in comparison.

[Tom]

That Ljb and his wooden-dummy, Charley McCarthy, er, a, Amazin actually keep finding this webpage.
Judging from all the ignorance they spout off here, I am really impressed with their ability to comprehend and use bookmarks, or favorites. Way to go guys, and withia leberal education to boot!
(Remember that movie with the dummy and the ventriloquist...You're the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy.....funny how I always think of that scene after I read this section...heh,heh,heh,

[doophus]

Amazin:

Not once did I say you called ME names, but I did try to give you a dose of your own medicine. I only wish that it had worked better. Hopefully, you'll resist the name-calling, feeble attempts to restate their premise, and your pronouncements that something is "absurd," "stupid," etc. while offering no facts to refute their or support your argument.

Whether you use allied or enemy military and/or civilian casualties, wars or near wars, dollars spent or not spent on foreign aid and/or military, Peace Corp workers assigned or unassigned, the use or non-use of hi-tech weaponry, there is one thing for certain--you'll eventually get everything boiled down to facts. Using the above-stated, the facts might prove/disprove the propensity of a group to war-mongering or prove/disprove the group's diplomatic prowess (foreign affairs) or both. How you use the facts is left to your discretion, but those facts can't be flushed only because they don't support your belief(s).

Anyway, the real Amazin' might someday "see the light", but I'll book that it will be a death-bed confession.

This debate/argument/war/squirmish is over; I'm off to visit my 1st great-grandson; another conservative, of course. In a few years I'm sure he'll qualify for Redneck, Jr. status.

Back next week.

Cheers!


George

[JesseV!!!]

Tom said...
You're the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy, NO, YOU'RE the dummy....

I agree with you 100%. It's so obvious that the "two" parties are pulling further appart.

This alarms me b/c I see bigger trouble in the future for us. It should also help us to understand that we need to take action against this runaway train and compromise more.

If we don't, we will be able to call each other a bunch of knuckle dragging, mouth breathers and both sides would be right. Ouch! We're smarter than that! Aren't we?

JV

[Amazin]

Doophus:

Once again you make no sense:
You say:

Amazin:

Not once did I say you called ME names, but I did try to give you a dose of your own medicine. I only wish that it had worked better. Hopefully, you'll resist the name-calling, feeble attempts to restate their premise, and your pronouncements that something is "absurd," "stupid," etc. while offering no facts to refute their or support your argument.

Well if I didn't call YOU names why did you take a quote from me that had no name calling in it and directly under that tallk about name calling like so:

Originally posted by Amazin
Your argument holds no water.Without arguing the details,your premise is that you judge whether a president is a war monger or not by the number of Americans that died.

Amazin', when are you ever going to debate with facts? Your name-calling and invalid pronouncements won't win any debates on this board. With the facts I previously presented, I REST MY CASE.

What was the relevance of quoting me when it supported nothing of what you were talking about?

And once again like a true conservative you show your hypocracy.I shouldn't name call but their is no mention that you name called me.

I'm glad you are going to see your grandchild.Maybe he can bring some sanity into your life.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

I did answer your questions, it seems they are not the answers you seek. Just because someone believes it is a lie does not make it a lie. I personally, do not believe Pres. Bush lied.

I also agreed the war was an act of intervention. Additionally, I pointed out intervention has been carried out in the past by both parties. So I do not understand the preoccupation with Bush using accepted precedent during his administration.

I do not have an agenda to advance and I am not trying to convince anyone my veiws are correct.

It seems to me as I answered before, and I will repeat it here, the detractors on whole seem to have adopted a strategy of obstructionism and have not offered any viable alternatives, just rhetoric. That is my point no substance from Pres. Bush's detractors.

And no matter how many times you tell me Pres. Bush is lying, I am not convinced especially since you dismissed possible explanations with a statement saying " I and many others say it is a lie"

If you have been reading my posts I constantly talk about how liberals want to tell me what is good for me and how I should act. To me this is what you are proving to me by this statement : " I and many others say it is a lie". Well ljb, " I and many others say it is not a lie." Just because I say it does not mean it isn't a lie any more than your saying it is proves it is a lie. Is my wariness of liberal doctrine clear now?

In conclusion my points are again 1) Bush's detractors have offered no substance only rhetoric and obstructionist tactics and 2) liberal idealogy is based on elitism i.e. I know what is best for you. Also if I misunderstood your statement about lying feel free to clarify exactly what I misunderstood.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

Boy, they just hate it when someone challenges them on an adult level. Good posts. ;)

[JustRalph]

Now I am sure Saddam would have just left all this crap buried and would have never used it.

From MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cv=CA01

U.S.: Banned arms evidence in Iraq

June 25 — Pentagon officials stressed that none of the material constituted the "smoking gun" they were looking for but said that after two months of searching, they believed it provided the best leads yet. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

Millions of documents,
pre-Gulf War parts found

MSNBC AND NBC NEWS

WASHINGTON, June 25 — U.S. investigators in Iraq have found equipment for a nuclear weapons program and millions of detailed documents relating to chemical and biological weapons, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

June 25 — An Iraqi scientist led U.S. officials to plans for a gas centrifuge and components of a uranium enrichment system. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.
U.S. OFFICIALS said the discoveries were not proof that Iraq had managed to build or obtain banned weapons of mass destruction, as President Bush asserted before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March. But they said the materials, some of which dated back to the first Gulf War, were compelling proof that Saddam was trying actively to acquire such weapons in defiance of the United Nations.
NBC News has learned of several recent discoveries, some within the past week, one related to nuclear weapons and the others to chemical, biological and banned conventional weapons.
Three U.S. officials told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that an Iraqi scientist who was part of what Saddam called his “nuclear mujahadeen” had led intelligence officials to a barrel in the back yard of his home in Baghdad, where they found plans for a gas centrifuge and components of a uranium enrichment system.
The Associated Press, citing a U.S. intelligence official, identified the scientist later as Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed Iraq’s program to make centrifuges that would enrich uranium for nuclear weapons before the 1991 Gulf War. NBC’s sources said the plans dated back to the end of the Gulf War, when Saddam was already widely known to be seeking such weapons, and came as no great surprise.

CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
The more significant discoveries were related to Saddam’s attempts to rebuild chemical and biological arsenals like those he was known to have used during the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1980s, when he was supported by the U.S. government.

Sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski that within just the past week, U.S. investigators had found two shipping containers filled with millions of much more recent documents relating to chemical and biological weapons.
One of the documents, from 2001, was titled “Document burial and U.N. activities in Iraq,” the sources said. It gave detailed instructions on how to hide materials and deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, the sources said.

Other documents related to the concealment of VX nerve gas, the sources said.
The sources said U.S. troops also discovered about 300 sacks of castor beans, which are used to make the deadly biological agent ricin, hidden in a warehouse in the town of al-Aziziyah, 50 miles southeast of Baghdad, the capital. The castor beans were inaccurately labeled as fertilizer.
U.S. search teams have also been led to a site near Nasiriyah, a key Euphrates River crossing 200 miles south of Baghdad, where Iraqi informants said Scud missiles were buried.

COMPELLING EVIDENCE?
U.S. officials said the discoveries did not constitute final proof that Saddam had rebuilt his banned weapons program, as administration officials alleged in justifying the invasion of Iraq. But they said the materials were the best evidence so far that the Iraqi government could have done so and was actively trying to deceive U.N. inspectors before the war.
Richard Butler, the United Nations’ former chief weapons inspector, told MSNBC TV’s Lester Holt that he was “absolutely unsurprised” by the report. “We have known of [Saddam’s previous plans] for a decade,” he said.
Butler said that the discovery of components of a uranium enrichment system suggested that Iraq was far from production of actual weapons. The need for an enrichment system established that “Iraq does not have adequate sources of natural uranium,” he said. “... It has to be, above all, enriched to get weapons grade.”
“This all adds up and makes sense,” Butler said.

[ljb]

Tom,
You are stooping a bit. Your name calling is unbecoming of you. If insulting personal attacks is all you can add to the discussion please just read and refrain from contributing.
Thank you

[ljb]

Show me,
The question I asked you was" Why did the current administration lie to us about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's threat? I think it was because Bush needed a boost in the mid-term elections. Or perhaps it was just about the oil. Please enlighten me as to the real reason they lied to us.
You have not answered this question.
If you could just answer this question and not post lines and lines of spin it would be appreciated.
Thank you.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

How can I give you an answer, if it will not be accepted?

In my previous answer to you I stated' "I and many others do not believe Bush lied" about Iraq. This is one of many times I expressed my opinion that I do not think Bush lied

I understand this is not the response you prefer, but this persistence in not accepting my answer is frustrating.

Everyone, this time I cannot answer ljb's question, because he is a clever one. If I understand ljb's question, I believe he is asking why Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs. I cannot answer the “why” part, because the question assumes I agree Bush lied. Sort of like asking someone who never beat his wife, why did you stop beating your wife?

So instead I am answering the inferred relevant question, "Do you believe Bush lied about Iraq's WMD? My answer is I do not believe Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs.

To reiterate this point and prior points 1) I do not believe Bush lied about Iraq's WMD, to get re-elected, 2) Bush's detractors have not used any substance, only rhetoric and obstructionist tactics, and 3) liberal ideology is based on elitism. I am spinning out of control.

My questions to you, ljb. What specific lines and lines of spin are being referred too in previous post? And as I asked before do you now understand my wariness of liberal doctrines? Additionally, I must have understood your statement about “I and many others say it is a lie”, since your post did not address any misinterpretation on my part.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

ljb, one more time: Bush took as truth what Clinton adm. and UN said about WMD's. This was not an orig. observation by Bush, but by Clinton and UN. Clinton was right just didn't have the guts to eradicate the Iraqui Govt. George did. Case closed.

[ljb]

Lefty,
The Bush administration repeatedly used scare tactics to gain approval for a pre-emptive strike at Iran. Namely they said Saddam was on the brink of having nukes and was a threat to the world. They also used intelligence data that agreed with their goals and pushed aside data that conflicted with their goals. We now know that the nukes were a lie as was Saddam's threat to the world. If this ain't lying, pray tell what is it?

[ljb]

Show me
please see my reply to Lefty. Oh and please decrease the spin a bit.

[Tom]

1. I am only following the examples set by you and the A boy.
2. I have to stoop to talk to you on your level.
3. What are you drinking?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Show me
please see my reply to Lefty. Oh and please decrease the spin a bit.

LOL, facts can be spun, not opinions. BTW did I answer your questions?

[Lefty]

Bush is lying cause you and other liberals who know better say so? I think not. The liberals in office know better even if you don't.
A scientist of Sadaam's who defected said he was only a couple yrs away from developing a nuculear weapon. Any sane leader, with info like this, would have acted the same. Wanna talk spin? I'm certainly sick of yours. But the facts trump your lies or misinformation. It's done. Sadaam's out. Have your liberal cry and forget it and go on to your next bit of misinformation.

[ljb]

Lefty's words
"A scientist of Sadaam's who defected said he was only a couple yrs away from developing a nuculear weapon. "

A couple of years hey. Last I heard the guy had parts to a centrifuge buried in his garden for the last 12 years. Hardly imminent danger to most folks.

[ljb]

Well i guess your stating you don't believe Bush and his administration lied to us is your answer.
Just Ralph posted a note with a link to msnbc and there reports on the latest findings in Iraq. Both these findings indicate that Saddam COULD have been developing wmd, neither report indicates a "smoking gun" . These reports are more confirmation of my accusation. The administration pumped up and lied to us about Saddam and his imminent threat to the world.
IMHO they did this to rally the troops around our leader. It is a shame that young Americans are being killed daily in Iraq for such a cause, while the president makes jokes at million dollar fund raisers.

[gino]

W is just another rich punk, but can you imagine where we'd be if Tipper's hubby had been elected? whoooo baby...
thank god for small favors...
where is Curtis LeMay when we need him?
gino

[Lefty]

ljb, hardly imminent? I think it's imminent as hell. Would you have preferred Sadaam take out a couple U.S. cities before we acted?
Are liberals really on our side? The U.S. side? The more I read their posts on this board the more I wonder...
And Clinton himself said he didn't think the U.S. should be the only Superpower. And now he wants to change the rules so he can run for another term. This is all unblvble. If my dad was alive today this bull*^% would kill him!

Gino, GW may be from a rich family but I don't think he's a punk. I thank God he's the President.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Saddam had as much chance of taking out a couple of us cities as you do of winning the lottery. Saddam's threat was just propoganda put out by the Bush administration to get the folks in a patriotic fervor. It has worked with many but some don't buy the spin/propaganda.

Many of the folks on these boards go through life with blinkers on, I have posted a method for learning more about the lies this administration has spewed. There are links to reputable news reports, if you or others that carry similiar feelings would look at some of this data with open minds, perhaps you would stop being so defendant of the current administration.

[Lefty]

ljb, that's merely your ill informed opinion. I have Clinton, the UN and a runaway scientist to back up mine.

[Lefty]

ljb, when it comes to open minds you really have one, right? I admire this adm because this Pres has done everything in his power to defend this country. The last adm helped the axis of evil to continue to become a threat. He didn't want us to be the only SuperPower.

[ljb]

Lefty
This administration has put Americans around the world in more danger then anytime in recent history.
I know how much you admire Clinton and the UN, as for the runaway scientist, well we should be concerned about this dude having parts to a centrifuge buried in his garden for the last 12 years.

[Tom]

BLT,
You foret that the UN resolution back in Novemeber was not one to "look for WMD to see if there were any" it was to go in and make sure that they had been destoyed since evidence that they had was never presented. THey KNEW the WMD existed. There is no lying here. Unitil concrete evidence is givne, we have to assume they are still out there. Just because we can't find them is irrelevent, In fact, it is disturbing. I can assume they were never destroyed because if they were, why wouldn't Iraq have come clean and avoided all this?

BTW, American soldiers were dying around the world during the Zipper-man's presidency...the only reason they are still in harm's way today is becasue for some reason, Bush is trying to appease you libs by not, as I encouraged, waging total war in Iraq. Perhap we would find the WMD quicker if we didn't waste so much time trying to rebuild over there. Give them some tools and tell them to get to work.

[Lefty]

ljb, once again you just spout your misinformed opinion with nothing to back it up. I backed up mine and with the 2 entities you libs(most libs, just to make you happy. Libs have so few moments of happiness. But I digress)like, er, love the most, i.e. Clinton and the UN. World a much safer place with Iraq no longer a threat and Bin Laden and other terrorists on the run. The fact that you dispute it is not necessarily cause you believe it, but justt hate Bush so. Why?
I hate Clinton but I have reasons, legitimate reasons. He would like for the UN and the rest of the world to run our affairs. Do you also believe that way?
Do you, like Clinton, believe the U.S. and the world would be better off if everyone had nukes?
BTW, If there were no WMD's why did Sadaam go through this war when he had no chance? If there were no WMD's he didn't have to. All he had to do was comply with the UN resolutions. His actions prove there were WMD's. Where are they? We better hope they are found. I don't blve they will be found in Iraq.

[Lefty]

Tom, good post. Our men were dying in Bosnia. No liberal outcry about Bosnia and yet no reason whatsoever to go there as they posed no threat, with their tribal wars, to the U.S. Yet no liberal outcry. Politics, politics.

[ljb]

Lefty, does this distorted, history lesson have anything to do with the discussion at hand?
Lefty's word" Our men were dying in Bosnia. No liberal outcry about Bosnia and yet no reason whatsoever to go there as they posed no threat, with their tribal wars, to the U.S. Yet no liberal outcry. Politics, politics. "

[ljb]

Lefty's question
BTW, If there were no WMD's why did Sadaam go through this war when he had no chance? "
Saddam did not want the war, he offered to debate Bush on international tv. Bush refused (suspecting a trap perhaps?)
Bush and his gang started the war Saddam had no choice.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty, does this distorted, history lesson have anything to do with the discussion at hand?
Lefty's word" Our men were dying in Bosnia. No liberal outcry about Bosnia and yet no reason whatsoever to go there as they posed no threat, with their tribal wars, to the U.S. Yet no liberal outcry. Politics, politics. "

Yes, it is called a double standard. I have been referring to this in my prior posts. It seems some of your ilk tend to look the other way or approve certain intervention by the U.S. in foreign affairs if instituted by a Democrat, but intervention in foreign affairs under a Republican President is unacceptable. This double standard is what makes the liberal position laughable, especially since your group fails to grasp its endorsement of the double standard.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

ljb, Sadaam had lots of choice, HIS choice was The choice. He could have avoided the war by COMPLYING to UN resolutions. That's all he had to do. Doesn't make sense to go to war unless he had something to hide. hmmmm.
My Bosnia reference has everything to do with discussion at hand. SMTW, got it, but you didn't or won't admit it and I am not surprised.

[Tom]

Now you are lying, L.....Saddam had lots of choices going back to the first Gulf war and everytime, he made the wrong ones. IF he had no WMD, why did he continually thrawrt the UN inspectors?
Why did he throw them out of Iraq?
Don't you ever look at facts before you spread your lies?

[JesseV!!!]

lefty...
"A scientist of Sadaam's who defected said he was only a couple yrs away from developing a nuculear weapon."

Just a thought on that. How long was he from having a nuklear weapon on an intercontinental balistic missile?

What he would've had is a 3 ton heap on a truck. Maybe. Glad he's on the run though.

Statements can be decieving.

Why can't they find him or do they want him to flee?

[ljb]

Saddam was complying with the UN.
The weapons inspectors were in the country searching for weapons.
Turn this around once, suppose a force decided to inspect the U.S. for wmd or anything else they didn't agree with, would you propose the U.S. comply whole heartedly? Or do you think the U.S. should screw with the minds of those folks going around our country inspecting?

[ljb]

My reply to Lefty pretty well answers your question.
I post the facts you just spin them.

[ljb]

The Bosnia thing was a UN backed action. Totally different circumstances and conditions. No comparison. Therefore nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[Lefty]

No. 1, don't blve it was a UN backed action, and if it was I don't care cause I for one don't want to turn this country over to the UN. Bosnia was absolutely no threat to the US and Iraq was. But you libs persist. You have something against this President and I wonder if you'd expound. I have made myself clear why I don't like Clinton. But you spew your negativism about Bush without one bit of logic or consistent thght. And don't poit to the ridiculous resume' you posted full of half-truths and inuendo.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
The Bosnia thing was a UN backed action. Totally different circumstances and conditions. No comparison. Therefore nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The above answer is spin, the facts are U.S. under a Democratic President intervened in another county's sovereign matters.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality, see what I mean

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Saddam was complying with the UN.


A LIE!

[Lefty]

Jesse, you're kidding, right? Oh, heck let Sadaam develop his nuclear weapon he can't deliver it. That's what you seem to be sayong. Why let him develop the nuke? That's crazy. BTW, Clinton let a big contributor of his sell China A delivery system for satellites, supposedly, what if Sadaam got hold of one of those? Why take the damn chance?
Ljb, Sadaam complying? Bet that's news to the UN.
And the next statement is just preposterous. The war on terror was launched against us. We just deliver money manpower food and any other thing the world needs and then just listen to em badmouth us. Your hypothisis is without thought or merit.
You libs keep wanting to make us the bad guys then holler foul when a conservative questions your patriotism.

[ljb]

Saddam complied with UN. It is only a lie to Bush and his supporters.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You and Tom seem to keep skirting the issues here. My question to you was:
Did Clinton lie and did the UN lie?
You have failed again.

[Lefty]

Uh, scuse me ljb, but you are confused again. That was OUR question to you!

[ljb]

And lefty my response to you is: This topic started out with Bush's lies. You and Tom have tried to turn it around and make it about Clinton's credibility. It is a sorry state of affairs when you use Clinton to vouch for Bush after you have spent the last 10 years calling Clinton a liar. What am I to believe Clintons lies or Clinton is an excellent reference for truth?

[Tom]

The point is, BLT, that it was not just Bush who said that WMD existed. YOU keep spinning it to seem like he was the only one who said this, when in fact, Clinton and the UN also said the same thing. We do not mean to imply that Billy is a reliable source, just that your hero sang the same song as did many other countries. Why do you single out Bush as the lone voice now? If you remenber back last fall, the voiice of the world was not that WMD do not exist, it was just give the UN inspectors more time to find them.

BTW..if that was indeed Sadamm speaking today, then he, too is still hiding in Iraq..why is it so hard for you to conceive that maybe the WMD are also still there and hidden? Or were destoyed by the army before they got caught with them-remember, no one knew if SH was alive or dead, so maybe the generals got smart and moved the WMD or buried them?

This has nothing to do with Clinton's credibility (although he has none!) Yours, however, is starting to show signs of being as easy to find as WMD!

[dav4463]

We couldn't even find a little girl who was abducted and held prisoner just a few miles from home....and that is right here in the USA. How do you expect us to find weapons of mass destruction in a somewhat hostile country in just a few days or weeks? Give it time, I am sure they are there somewhere. Our government is not stupid...they know what they are doing.

[Lefty]

ljb, you've exposed yourself. You refuse to anser a question directly. If you do the question traps you. You call Bush a liar on WMD's but you won't say you blve Clinton and UN lied too, because they said it first. We are not changing the subject just backtracking to original sources. If you blved Clinton when he said WMD's were there, and you blved the UN when they said the WMD's were there, how can you call Bush a liar on the subject? You are trapped and you won't answer the question. You sir are a liberal and one that answers questions with questions and turns things around, right outta the liberals handbook. Tom and I answred your questions, every one, but you can't give us a strght answer. Please look up the word disengenuous.
Everybody that blves ljb has trapped himself give me a hell yeah!

[gino]

without firing up lefty or ljb, does anybody know if W really said "...the French don't know the meaning of the word entrepeneur..." if he did say it, his stock goes up w/ me, and if he didn't, his writers should work it into his next speech...
gino
ps. the 4th of July is a bad nite for horses...all you mad db freaks check the 5th of July results for aberrant numbers trom tracks in proximity to firework shows...

[Tom]

HELL YEAH!

Maybe BLT will chew off his leg to get out the trap????