1) I supported him
2) He turned out to be wrong
3) I am not an idiot
4) It is therefore impossible that I could have supported something wrong.

I like that. Pretty accurate.

Sadly, Bush supporters often get #3 wrong.

LincolnLogolas

Actually, it wasn't Bush who ordered the UN Inspectors to leave, it was the UN. They did so when the idea of war was approaching. That's just a minor clarification without much meaning. But I can certainly understand your frustration with your other points. I will say though, that at the time we were supporting Saddam, we had American citizens held hostage by a radical Iranian government. I know it may sound weak, but hey, I'd be all for pissing off Iran back then too.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I don't know who Neal Boortz is, nor what he has on his website.

You need to check him out then. Boortz says it the way it is. He defends Bush on some things and tears him apart on some others.

/click

mr fabulous

Glad you reminded me. I had intended to apologize to you and forgot. I was too harsh. You were the second person to ask me that question and I had already responded to it. (Scroll up and read it if you're interested).

Why do Republians hate America?

jdave34

Well, thanks for being so rude....but anyway, you go get me a tidbit of incriminating evidence.

dangermen said:

Fact #1: Clinton did think there was enough reason to keep --UN-- pressure on Iraq to disarm. He did not think there was enough reason to invade Iraq. If he did, we would have invaded. Simple 'eh?

He did think there was reason to invade. You think those bombings were for nothing? The only reason we didn't invade in 1998 is because we decided to give Saddam a "last chance" with Resolution 1441. (Of course, France ended up de-clawing that resolution.)

Fact #2: Saddam Hussein killed many Muslim clerics that many in Al Queda idolized. In fact, many in Al Queda hated Saddam for this. IOW, why would Al Queda work with Saddam when he killed their religious leaders? Fact is that Al Queda wasnt working with Saddam or in Iraq until we made it a breading ground for others to come in and attack us directly by killing our troops.

Newsflash, there is more than one terrorist group that wants to hurt us. Conflict is inevitable, and where do you prefer it happen? And with whom?

Fact #3: The US administration did not have a thorough plan to bring Iraq out of the post conflict chaos. No evidence necessary, turn on your TV.

Oh yes, TeeVee would never lie to you. Why, remember when the entire Baghdad museum was completely looted, or when coalition forces would take weeks to secure Baghdad?

Fact #4: A close friend of mine lost her brother to an RPG in Mosul. This *war* is not any closer to being over. In the mean time, good men and women are dying because we are not equipped to rebuild a whole country by ourselves. The --UN-- does this, we do not.

In what world do you live in that the U.N. would be more effective? The U.N. peacekeeping forces are a mess and a joke.

Fact #5: Being a belligerent prick of a country is not a foreign policy.

If exercising a progressive foreign policy is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Fact #6: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, not Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, or any other.

All of the above supported the Iraq invasion, some unilaterally. Clinton almost did in 1998, and he supposedly supports this new invasion. Kennedy and Kerry both voted for the 2003 war, and stood behind Clinton in 1998. Dean even went so far to say that we could never reach a compromise with France, and that we should deal with Iraq however we wanted (in 1998).

Fact #7: Bushs rebuilding of Iraq has sent billions in --no-bid contracts-- to Halliburton only to have a criminal investigations being launched against Halliburton. Where is the capitalism in no-bid contracts?

Man, Halliburton again? Halliburton won the right to no-bid military support contracts before Bush came in office. Why? For rapid response, so the military wouldn't have to go through a lengthy bidding process. There are no "criminal investigations" into Halliburton. Just a minor discrepancy with gasoline prices which A) wasn't really their fault, and B) has been dealt with.

Fact #8: We did not use --ALL OF OUR OPTIONS--. When we had 100,000 troops off of the border of Iraq, Saddam Hussein cooperated. We never went to other countries asking them for cash to fund keeping our troops there. By keeping our troops there we could have kept the pressure on to keep the inspectors going without unnecessarily risking lives.

Fantastic plan there. Constant pressure, continual sanctions, for all of eternity! Who cares about the people really suffering -- the Iraqi people. Who cares that Saddam was bypassing the sanctions and building palaces with the money. Who cares that he kept trying to get WMD, foil the inspections, and had a huge grudge with the U.S..

When do we get an apology? Where is the integrity we keep hearing about? We were obviously wrong and weve alienated a lot of our allies. The commander and chief like a captain is responsible for conduct of his administration and policies. It is time Bush owned up to our mistakes.

The Iraqi invasion has been, on the whole, a very positive endeavor. He may have made a few mistakes (mainly putting too much faith in WMD intel), but he by no means owes an apology for the whole thing.

"2004-03-03 01:15:48 PM Dinki



Bush & Cheney: Keeping America terrorist free since September 12th 2001 !

Well except for that anthrax thing :-O"


Well, that was a former FBI agent, wasnt it? So thats domestic terrorism.

Hooray for Tigger! I agree 100%. I voted for Bush. I didn't know Cheney. I didn't realize that Ashcroft, Rove, and Ridge were part of the package. I thought we'd get some more Powell, maybe a little bit of McCain. Unfortunately, things didn't work out. Our social policy is being set by a man who was defeated by a dead person and who thinks that he should enforce his distorted view of Christian morality on everyone. Our diplomatic face consists of the smarmy, smirking arrogance of Rumsfeld. Our president's closest advisor (Cheney) thinks that raw intelligence data should be mentioned in the State of the Union (and used as grounds for war) and that no-bid contracts are a great idea for helping out old buddies. THIS IS NOT THE COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE, social moderate, fiscal conservative we voted for! This is a different man, with evil advisors, who cannot think for himself. Stop backing him, for he is no Republican.

mtt

Please, enough with the retarded sign links. Geeze.

2004-03-03 11:46:15 AM batcar01

way to stick it to em. :)

I would be embarassed to admit, by implication, that I was so incapable of formulating and expressing my own opinions that I had to rely on bumper stickers to do it for me. But that's just me.

generic iconoclast...

i work in the news business... i know why the O'Neill story isn't running - he's a liar and has a grudge. If we ran every story that pissed off ex-employees wanted us to, we wouldn't have time to cover dean's scream.

the media (me) are very very hungry for bush stuff, we just always end up with egg on our face - there is nothing there!

Your time is almost up W. Can't run to your daddy now.

Generic Iconoclast

I work in a news room...the O'Neill story doesn't get covered because there just isn't anything there. It's a non-story.

Laughing:
that's a good damn link.

One good thing about the war for Bush: it takes the focus off the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose.

The biggest mass murderer in American history is free, and Bush goes running after Saddam Hussien. Smart!

Rayonic

*Golf clap*

People are mischaracterizing, though he is pushing intelligence reform, he isn't blaming Bush, he is saying that the administration is a victim of the bad intelligence, not the cause.

Karl Rove did so much damage to this world when he insinuated in a fake poll in 2000 that McCain had an 'illegitimate, colored child'. Since I've learned of that treachery, and because you can directly trace the rise of Bush to South Carolina, I have become furious with this administration.

I doubt that was Rove, it was probably former S.C. Gov. Carrol Campbell and his political machine who backed Bush. This is standard fare for that group.

Bush won that battle, but in S.C., McCain's supporters won the war. His two biggest backers, Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford are in the Senate and the Governor's Mansion. Not to mention the now humorous irony of accusing the Senator of having an illegitimate black child.

2004-03-03 01:34:26 PM Generic Iconoclast


Hooray for Tigger! I agree 100%. I voted for Bush. I didn't know Cheney. I didn't realize that Ashcroft, Rove, and Ridge were part of the package. I thought we'd get some more Powell, maybe a little bit of McCain. Unfortunately, things didn't work out. Our social policy is being set by a man who was defeated by a dead person and who thinks that he should enforce his distorted view of Christian morality on everyone. Our diplomatic face consists of the smarmy, smirking arrogance of Rumsfeld. Our president's closest advisor (Cheney) thinks that raw intelligence data should be mentioned in the State of the Union (and used as grounds for war) and that no-bid contracts are a great idea for helping out old buddies. THIS IS NOT THE COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE, social moderate, fiscal conservative we voted for! This is a different man, with evil advisors, who cannot think for himself. Stop backing him, for he is no Republican.


Indeed, well said. I just wish the democrats would have choosen someone better than Kerry. . .

Best gird yourself for what's to come
While I unleash these tactless puns:
I did not the troops insult
The insult is what's Dub's result
A feckless reckless war of choice
Ignoring half this nation's voice
Bud Dub he used his lucky charm
And threw our children into harm
Their reward to do their part:
Green clover gravestones, purple hearts.

The only Presidency John Kerry is gonna have is a Presidency of one of the companies his wife has interests in.

Confabulat

I guess I'll be the one to break the news to you....We're still chasing Osama. Unless of course you believe some conspiracy-minded liberals & Iranians who think we already have him, and we're just waiting until November to say so.

Ok, for all the numbskulls who ignored it yesterday, you want examples of Bush lying, here you go:

Transportation:

Then

Our national railroad network is a crucial component of our public transportation system. I support a healthy intercity passenger rail system. I support current efforts to make Amtrak more efficient and competitive. I believe these efforts will result in better, more extensive and more reliant rail service for the millions of Americans who travel by train.
Bush as quoted by the Associated Press Sep 17, 2000

Now

States are worried about a provision in the Bush administration's proposal to overhaul Amtrak, fearing it would force them to shoulder much of the cost of long-distance passenger train service in the future, according to this report by Erin Madigan that was published by Stateline.org.


(The administration is) taking states at their most vulnerable time ... and telling us, Well, if you're going to have this program, you're going to have to pay for it largely. And that's just not what states need, Missouri state Sen. Joan Brey (D) said.
Stateline.org September 10, 2003

Oil Dependency:

Then

Our country better become less dependent on foreign crude, thats why Im for the exploration of ANWR, thats why Im for the exploration of natural gas, which is hemispheric.
Bush in Republican Primary Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000

Now

1999 Imports of Oil 8,731,000 barrels per day
2003 (10 month average) Imports of Oil 9,960,000 barrels per day
Source US Department of Energy

People seem to think that this whole intelligence snafu about WMD was not Bush's fault. Well, if it wasn't, then it sure as hell is Cheney's! That whole Office for Special Plans idea was terrible! Funneling raw intelligence data, compiled by amateur neo-cons from various think-tanks, is a piss-poor method for generating foreign policy. Don't blame this on the CIA, they had nothing to do with Bush being mislead. He either misled America himself or was misled by his advisors and VP. That alone should be grounds for not trusting the man.

Pxtl:
>>think a farkload of people are dead for no good reason. Which is why we were pissed, remember?


It may be why we're pissed, but it's actually not why we went to war. At least, that's what Shrubya has said on numerous occasions. Iraq supposedly went down to *prevent* a shiatload of people from being killed by weapons, which it turns out, they never had. Inasfar as Saddam gassing his own people (if that's the people you're referring to, I wasn't sure), he started that years ago, no new news here. Claiming outrage at this point is hypocritical and suspect, given the opportunity a preemptive war presented to Bush and his backers.
If we did all this because, as you put it, "we're pissed", god help us all.

I voted for Bush. I didn't know Cheney. I didn't realize that Ashcroft, Rove, and Ridge were part of the package. I thought we'd get some more Powell, maybe a little bit of McCain.

Very well said. I think there are alot of us out there.

More? sure!


Environmental Regulations:

Then

Q: Would the federal government still have some new regulations to pass?
BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as theyre based upon science and theyre reasonable, so long as people have input.
Bush in the Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Now

The Bush administration is quietly reshaping environmental policy to expand logging and other development by settling a series of lawsuits, many of them filed by industry groups.


As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging.


None of the decisions were subject to prior public comment or congressional approval.


I don't know if it's a policy, but it's definitely a pattern, said Kristen Boyles, a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice, who has frequently battled the Bush administration in court.


The industry sues and then the current administration does a poor job of defending itself or comes to a sweetheart settlement, Boyles said.


Critics call it sue and settle, leaving few fingerprints as officials move to roll back environmental protections.


CBS News April 19, 2003

World Opinion of the US:


Then

Q: Should the people of the world fear us, or see us as a friend?
BUSH: They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesnt matter who you are or where youre from that you can succeed. I dont think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If were an arrogant nation, theyll resent us. If were a humble nation, but strong, theyll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And thats why weve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. Were a freedom-loving nation. If were an arrogant nation, theyll view us that way, but if were humble nation, theyll respect us.
Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Now


Do we need to comment?

"2004-03-03 01:43:56 PM The504


The only Presidency John Kerry is gonna have is a Presidency of one of the companies his wife has interests in. "


I cant believe im replying to such a stupid post, but here goes:

You mean like, being the president of a contry your father was already president of, who also ran the CIA, who inherited all his money from his grandfather who made his money selling steel and oil with the Rockafellers and Carnegies?

You mean like that?

couple others, in his own words all of them...


Health Insurance:


Then

There needs to be a safety net in America. There needs to be more community health clinics where the poor can go get health care. We need a program for the uninsured.
Bush St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000


Now

The number of uninsured Americans jumped by 2.4 million to 43.6 million [in 2002], the U.S. Census Bureau reported Monday. That's 15.2 percent of the population, compared with 14.6 percent in 2001.


Knight-Ridder September 30, 2003


Nation Building:

Then

Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and thats where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I dont think our troops ought to be used for whats called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when its in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise."
Bush Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000


Now


The president vowed that the United States will not leave Iraq before freedom is fully established, a line apparently aimed at some critics abroad and at home who have questioned the continued military presence in the country.


But Bush emphasized that the rise of Iraq, as an example of moderation and democracy and prosperity, is a massive and long-term undertaking.
CNN July 1, 2003

Mr_Fabulous

harryjrf
Why aren't they asking Clinton and company to come clean? Clinton launched missiles at Iraq, why isn't everyone demanding information from him?

Because this is 2004, not the 1990s. And because Bill Clinton is not running for President of the United States of America. I'm glad I could help.

Ah yes, the hey-day for Democratic power is over. That was my oversight.

ElwoodCuse

launching missles at Iraq <<<<<<< (est.) a multi-billion dollar war with no clear exit strategy that cost hundreds of American lives and thousands of civilian lives

You make it sound like the lives lost in the missile strike were somehow less important than the ones lost in the current liberation operation. I will grant you there are more poor souls involved, but come on, let's not cheapen them.

Even GHW Bush knew this would be a bad idea. "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs."

You contradict yourself with use of this quote. How can the human costs be incalculable when we know the numbers? And if you say "Well, we don't know what will happen tomorrow", then you can't say it will either get better or worse with any kind of certainty, can you? Next possible comment: "Well history shows that..." Yes, and if you flip a coin ten times and come up with heads ten times in a row, that doesn't necessarily mean tails is more likely to come up, since the chance is the same each time. The possibility of conflict is based on hundreds of factors, the convergence of which can't be accurately predicted at this time. At least, that's as far as my lay understand of probability goes.

Clinton's policy on Iraq was about the same as Joe Sixpack's policy on painting the garage. "Yeah, honey, I know the garage needs painting. I'll do it next weekend."

And that shows how glad I am that Bush is in office. I may not agree with everything he does, but at least he does something.

Heh...

Confabulat

I guess I'll be the one to break the news to you....We're still chasing Osama.

And not finding him. And ultimately, it rests on GW Bush to ensure we catch him. Sending hundreds of thousands of troops to a country where we KNOW he's NOT, is just stupid.

Truman had a sign that said "The buck stops here."

Bush should have a sign saying "I'm a victim of bad intelligence." It has multiple meanings.

Xtremehkr
Didn't he also budget a ton of money toward fuel-cell research or something like that? Sorry, that doesn't exactly support your arguement.

This one's a doozy!

Tax Fairness:

Then


Under my plan, the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today; afterwards, they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.
Bush St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000


Now


The Citizens for Tax Justice study concluded that the bottom fifth of taxpayers, those earning less than $16,000, would see a 10 percent drop in taxes by 2010; while taxes for those earning $16,000 to $28,000 would fall 12 percent. That compares to a 15 percent decline in taxes for the top 1 percent of Americans, those earning at least $337,000.

For taxpayers in the middle those earning between $45,000 and $337,000 the decline would be just 7 percent.

The Tax Policy Center study concluded that the wealthiest 1 percent's share of total federal taxes would drop to 22.8 percent in 2011, from 24.3 percent today, while the lowest 40 percent would see its share of the burden drop to 2 percent, from 2.2 percent.

The burden for families earning between $22,955 and $80,903 would rise slightly, from 25.5 percent to 26.1 percent.

CBS News June 4, 2003

Poverty:


Then


The new culture said if people were poor, the government should feed them. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not in prisons, but in social programs. People became less interested in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and more interested in pulling down a monthly government check. A culture of dependency was born. Programs that began as a temporary hand-up became a permanent handout, regarded by many as a right.

Bush: A Charge to Keep, p.229-230 Dec 9, 1999


Now


The annual income of middle-class Americans fell by almost $500 last year and the number of people in poverty rose by 1.7 million, the Census Bureau reported Friday, showing the lingering effects of the country's long economic downturn and suggesting the political trouble that may lie ahead for President Bush.

The Census data marked the second consecutive year of such discouraging trends after nearly a decade of continuous improvement. The rise in those classified as living in poverty suggested that the damage of the 2001 recession was finally beginning to reach low-income groups, which had been surprisingly resistant to its ill effects.

There were 3 million more poor people last year than in 2000 shortly before the economy slipped into recession, according to Census. Nationally, a family of four earning less than $18,244 a year is classified as living in poverty.

And, at $42,409 after adjusting for inflation, median income was 3.3 percent below where it had been only two years earlier, Census figures showed.

LA Times September 27, 2003

TheNewJesus said:

I hate the people that take angles on this issue. That we still did a good thing yadda yadda. Saddam was bad, yadda yadda. All of the fail to recognize the fact that this war was sold to us based on the existance of WMDs and terrorist connections. None of which has been found. Yet they will still conceed nothing in their lies.

Other reasons were listed, but the WMD issue was given prevalence. As a matter of fact, intelligence from the CIA and other international intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam had a WMD program.

If the CIA intercepted a genuine memo to, say, Fidel Castro saying "the anthrax-tipped warheads are ready", would you consider that a valid reason to invade? What if we intercepted hundreds of such memos and documents, along with confessions from scientists, officers, and officials?

Now, what if, after we invaded Cuba, it turned out that everyone was fooling each other and there was no anthrax? I'd say "Oops, but it was Fidel's own damned fault. He was trying to get WMD, and he would have eventually succeeded."

I may not agree with everything he does, but at least he does something.

That has to be the single most brain dead comment in this entire thread.

Just a footnote: if everyone cared about other people's opinions, arguments wouldn't exists. Flame wars wouldn't exist. Oh wait, this thread is flaming, isn't it? Well then not everyone cares about other people's opinions.

I don't give a shiat what the world thinks about us. If I think we're in the right, then that's all that matters to me.

/smug, because you can't make me be other wise :)

Linewalker, you bring up a point that is the whole problem, even though it seems you are unaware that you did so. You said,

"It seems to me there is still a question of if the intelligence was wrong or if the White House ignored certain intelligence that has now been proven to be correct."

I must emphasize that has now been proven to be correct. This is critical. Choosing which intelligence to accept is half of the decision making process. Clearly all available intelligence can not be used, in fact, some might conflict! So, it is irrelivant that some intelligence was ignored simply because we know now which was correct.

Perhaps, Karl, the reason we're unable to get any dirt on Bush is that he closes the books everywhere he goes? Oh, and Rove ruthlessly attacks and discredits anyone who tries to publish anything disparaging about him? I don't think Paul O'Neil was discredited, and would like to get a link about it if he was. I love finding out I'm wrong, because it gives me a chance to be more informed. Its sad that most conservatives these days feel as if they're less of a person if they for some reason aren't right about everything. Btw, I went to that boortz.com site. Man, is that man sure impartial. Anyone who mentions 'liberal' and 'the left' every chance he gets is probably a bit skewed in his views. At least the man's with me on the whole 'dumping Cheney' issue. Too bad he's defending Bush to a fault.

karl

liberals want to fry bush for the war but won't hold their own congressperson accountable for voting FOR the war - it really makes their argument transparent...

You've already forgotten Bush and Co. standing on television every night saying democrats who questioned either the Patriot Act or the war were putting America in danger, foot dragging for their own political gain, democrats before they were americans etc?

I remember. The dems may have caved but Bush was the one who lied. Lied, browbeat, intimidated, threatened and basically coerced Congress by instilling in their minds right before an election that voting against the war was voting for appeasement and Osama. Remember all that or has it gone down the memory hole as well?

mayoboy
"That has to be the single most brain dead comment in this entire thread."

No, but that one right there ranks up there pretty high.

MrPerspicacious

I gave you a link to what will eventually be 19000 pages of evidence. All of it is US Government documents. Either open your eyes and read posts, or stop lying and go away.

MrPerspicacious

The classic promise and then underfund tactic? The Clear Skies Act (which is a misnomer), the Patriot Acts (more misnomers).

The No Child Left Behind debacle (no funding).

1.5 Billion is how much he gave for encouraging people to get married!

Token gestures are all they are. If this country is to be serious about developing alternative fuels it will take a bit more than that. And actual funding too.

In the known history of mankind no country, city, or tribe, has pre-emptively attacked another country (without provocation) unless the attacking countries leaders first lied, or at least "massaged the facts", to convince it's people that the enemy was a bunch of evil bas-tards who would kill them all if they didn't attack first.

It's just a fact of human nature because most people DON'T want to go to war... You must mis-lead them or they won't do it/support you.

Hussein needed to be taken down, one way or another, and if misleading the American people was the only way Bush could do it then I say more power to him!

greenpants, if you intend your posts to be taken seriously, please try to have some substance. Simply calling bumper stickers 'retarded' and tryng to use that as a foundation for a request harkens back to grade school. I doubt that's the desired effect.

2004-03-03 01:40:26 PM Confabulat

One good thing about the war for Bush: it takes the focus off the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose.

The biggest mass murderer in American history is free, and Bush goes running after Saddam Hussien. Smart!

Osama will be captured in September.

That is all.