View Full Version : Bush at it again.
[conspiracy theory] Well it's been done before and is being done again [/conspiracy theory]
le bush (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/index.html) is re-writing history as it seems to why we attacked iraq, and how it happened.
§hinoßi
11-11-05, 05:42 PM
i dont agree that Bush distorted any facts. To put it simply:
Bush got intelligence that there were wmd's, so he decided to act on the intelligence.
My beef is that, even knowing this, he conducted the war like a retard, had there been wmd's the troops he sent there would not have been sufficient to keep these wmd's out of anyones hands, as a matter of fact, I remember reading that the army guarded about 5 facilities, and they all happened to produce oil.
I think when you look at the guy objectively, he isnt a bad guy. He just isn't fit to run a country. He does not have the leadership skills, intelligence, etc. to do so. Im sure Bush believes that what he does is best for America, but he just doesn't know what hes doing.
if you din't pay attention, during the first stage of the iraq "liberation" (liberation btw was added in late 2003- mid 2004) they attacked the oil wells/plants whatever first, and deployed troops there.
i don't agree with any part of the war (as usual) but the thing is no other country in this world wanted to help the US invade iraq, they all said wait, maybe its because they saw something wrong with all this evidence?
and bush isn't the only one not fit to run this country, cheney andthat other dudes whos name i can't remember right now, are also not helping.
dog2525
11-11-05, 10:21 PM
the only reason he went to war is to control some oil. oil is the new gold
Ominous Gamer
11-11-05, 10:24 PM
i don't agree with any part of the war (as usual) but the thing is no other country in this world wanted to help the US invade iraq, they all said wait, maybe its because they saw something wrong with all this evidence?
and bush isn't the only one not fit to run this country, cheney andthat other dudes whos name i can't remember right now, are also not helping.
You think?
When you send someone into the UN, and they hold up pieces of plastic and say "this is what the evidence will look like"....yeah, nations that understand how elect competent leaders are going to laugh at us.
the many flaws of this administration are coming to a glaring reality for those who so steadily supported it. with the last months happenings people that would hear no argument are begining to see just how unfit this admin is. hopefully the whole truth will come out soon good or bad so we can move on from there. no one and i mean no one has put for a plan for this war. every war has to end sometime and you need to have some goal for that ending to come as soon as capably possible.
this admin has effectively began the isolation of our country from others with our "we'll do what we believe is right" attitude. it has borrowed more money from foriegn nations than every presidency in the history of our country combined.......that's right COMBINED. and this after we had the largest surplus we've ever had with the last presidency. i could go on but i won't. i just sit and say "couple more years". it's all i can really do until next election time.
this country is not run by people who want to truly be public servants, that is what they are supposed to be, but by individuals with personal agendas. democratic and republican both. what choice do you really have come election time when you can only pick from 2 parties. some may say that is a choice but when you have to choose the guy that's "not that bad" or "well he's better than the other guy", what choice is there really. all these guys are millionaires most of the time anyways so what do they know about my problems really? [/rant]
i dont agree that Bush distorted any facts. To put it simply:
Bush got intelligence that there were wmd's, so he decided to act on the intelligence.
My beef is that, even knowing this, he conducted the war like a retard, had there been wmd's the troops he sent there would not have been sufficient to keep these wmd's out of anyones hands, as a matter of fact, I remember reading that the army guarded about 5 facilities, and they all happened to produce oil.
I think when you look at the guy objectively, he isnt a bad guy. He just isn't fit to run a country. He does not have the leadership skills, intelligence, etc. to do so. Im sure Bush believes that what he does is best for America, but he just doesn't know what hes doing.
Opinions with a dash of objectivity. Nicely done. Kudos to you. :cool:
le bush is re-writing history as it seems to why we attacked iraq, and how it happened.
I'm not finding this in that article anywhere... are you sure you read it?
speedy11309
11-13-05, 04:30 AM
see, i dont really feel like this is completely bush's fault. nor is the deficit. this is mainly for the fact that the only real power bush has in any of this matter was to declare war for 90 days. then congress has to approve it, which they did. congress was also the one to borrow all that money. sure bush may have pushed for it, but he pretty much has the same say in that matter as you and me, nada. ofcourse bush is head of the army, he has the "final" say as to what goes on, but he really doesnt. if congress REALLY wanted us out of this war, they can pull us out. the truth of the matter is they dont. you see on both sides of the fence people wanting us out of this war...but are we? no. while bush can be partly blamed for what has gone on during "his" administration, you cannot fully blame him for anything that has happened.
and to stray from bush for a moment to further my point, its just like saying clinton was fully responsible for the economic prosperity during his terms. that would be absolutely absurd to say the least. i think alan greenspan should be givin the most credit there. being able to introduce enough cash flow into the economy to stimulate it but enough to keep inflation low is a remarkable accomplishment.
ill end this by saying this, how i truly feel: the presidency is becoming more and more powerful, yes, but in reality, the president doesnt really do much. he doesnt put treaties into effect, cant pass laws, cant even propose laws, cant change tax rates, cant make ammendments, cant wage war for more than 90 days, hell the presidents vetos can even be overturned. and yet we blame our president for everything that goes wrong and give him credit for everything that goes right. i truly believe that we put too much scrutiny on our presidents while not pointing the finger in the correct direction. it does not matter from which party our president is from or who they are, it matters who is within congress and what they want to do with the country.
i blame bush for the missteps of his administration cause he is the commander in chief. i'm in the navy and i'll let you in on something. if a captain of the ship is asleep in his stateroom after a long 18 hour day and some Seaman(3rd lowest on the totem and usually the lowest allowed to steer the helm) runs the ship aground who do you think takes the blame? well the seaman might get some serious stuff dropped on him but the captain is immediately relieved from duty and flown off the ship as soon as is capably possible. he is responsible for the training and actions of his crew. the congress and senate are Bush's crew as well as his cabinet (which he selected, where a captain cannot select his crew).
i don't wholey put blame for our current state on bush though i must say. i believe the government in whole has gone to sleep or just has thier own individual agendas. to many politicians worry about re-election rather than doing what they were elected to do, work to make this a better country in all aspects.
i wish we can get a president like Lincoln in one aspect. when he was elected he put in his cabinet many people who called him a backwoods incompetent lawyer(many intelligent and well respected men in their fields). as well it was a completely bi-partisan cabinet. he gained their respect and one even called him the most impressive man he had ever met after having bashed him in the begining. politicians are to worried about thier parties and thier standing in them rather than mantaining thier principles or at least the ones they claimed so they could get elected.
I'm not finding this in that article anywhere... are you sure you read it?
Well lets start with my favorite. "We went to Iraq to liberate its people" something along those lines. We all know it was WMD's and the liberation part was never mentioned, only a few months after we were in Iraq.
"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Do I really have to argue this one? Nobody helped the US and everyone was telling bush to take his time and think things trough. And just what places around the world? Romania who helped them out? Thats pretty much it.
President Bush Friday accused critics of the Iraq war of distorting the events that led to the U.S. invasion, saying Democrats viewed the same intelligence and came to similar conclusions.
I'd love to hear more about this one, what were those similar conclusions, and jsut how many Democrats.
Just like the Patriot Act, Mission Accomplished, and his awsome tax returns, bush was pretty much wrong on every one of them, but lied his way trough to gain the peoples votes. By the way i know the awsome tax returns weren't really a lie, but giving joe shmoe 600$ and some rich dude 60000$ in the same tax return isn't really anyones idea of helping the people.
Non related crap.
If the terrorists drive America out of Iraq, Bush said, they could develop weapons of mass destruction, intimidate Middle East regimes friendly to the West, attack the United States and "blackmail our government into isolation."
Why are we comming back to this? If Saddam who was infinetly richer then Osama din't have WMD's how would these terrorists? North Korea has a WMD program and they even stated that they will sell those weapons, but i have yet to hear any of that from the media or Bush. So far his statment is exactly the same as the pre-Iraq one, just trying to scare the American people into his views.
"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.
Nothing to do with rewriting history, but why is he trying to keep the American people from attacking him? Isn't this what America is all about? Free speech, point of view, and people trying to change things to better their lives.
Well lets start with my favorite. "We went to Iraq to liberate its people" something along those lines. We all know it was WMD's and the liberation part was never mentioned, only a few months after we were in Iraq.
"...something along those lines"? Where does he say anything along those lines in that article? Where has he said that was the sole reason for going to Iraq, as an effort to change history?
Do I really have to argue this one?
You don't have to, but you're absolutely and unequivocally wrong on the "nobody helped us" statement.
Nobody helped the US and everyone was telling bush to take his time and think things trough. And just what places around the world? Romania who helped them out? Thats pretty much it.
Poor Nova...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html
Don't foget Poland!
I'd love to hear more about this one, what were those similar conclusions, and jsut how many Democrats.
Ask and ye shall receive. (By the way, I've already told you this before.)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
...but lied his way trough to gain the peoples votes.
Show me lies.
Why are we comming back to this? If Saddam who was infinetly richer then Osama [and] din't have WMD's how would these terrorists?
How many should they be able to buy from, say, Iran or North Korea, before you would consider them a threat? 1? 2? 100?
North Korea has a WMD program and they even stated that they will sell those weapons, but i have yet to hear any of that from the media or Bush.
Is it your contention that Bush doesn't know about this, but you do?
why is he trying to keep the American people from attacking him? Isn't this what America is all about? Free speech, point of view, and people trying to change things to better their lives.
What do you do when you're accused of lying, distorting facts, and being an overall jackass? If your history in this forum serves as any indication, you retaliate or refute said accusations. It's called "defending yourself". He's not trying to quell free speech, you goob. :p
speedy11309
11-13-05, 02:26 PM
nova i completely disagree with youre "he lied to gain peoples votes" statement". its not that i disagree with the statement, but you made it out to be that hes the only polititian ever to lie. need i remind you "no new taxes", "i did not have sexual relations with that woman", and my favorite "i am not a crook". every single president in our history has lied...a lot. why are you surprised its happening now?
oh i'm sorry, i din't know we were only arguing just THAT particular article. you asked me for examples.
secondly i don't care if he tries to defend himself, but saying that the american people not following bush with utmost loyalty and complaining about the Iraq war makes us look bad, and weak to our enemies is just ludicrous.
oh and btw. the damn WMD thing gets old after we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and we barely anything to show for it. i don't need the same dumb @$$ telling me to be afraid of whatever when he was wrong the first time and i have yet to see anyone be punished for it.
let me give you an example. in detroit if you drove around with your speakers loud enough for anyone to hear them 25 feet away, you got 3 months in jail and a 500$ fine for every offense. some people in the CIA din't do their job, neither did some in the whitehouse this in turn cost more lives then we can count, not to mention the 220 billion $ + the 9 billion that "went missing" and thats only up to now, so we have 1 guy resign and all's well?
* what i meant was he has lied at almost every turn, and there is a distinct difference between "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" and "(we took every freedom the american people had within their own homes and any other private areas that people died for through the patriot act) the patriot act works, it helps people" btw the patriot act has only solved about 200 crimes, 39 of those being terrorists suspects, not actually terrorists. so 300 million people have their privacy invaded so that we can catch people for money laundering or whatever.
the reason i hate bush so much is every damn mistake he makes costs us in some way. before his 4 year term ends america will be far worse off then it was before bush and the bush administration. and if you don't believe me, then lets just wait and see.
dok i understand you may support bush but one thing i have to ask is why haven't we gone after North Korea? Kim has the bomb, oppresses his people, has directly threatened us if we even mention an attempt to remove him from power. why have we not heard more on the issue about this?
i am in the military and personally don't want to get into it with North Korea cause we are already way to spread thin. people talk about troops beginning to extract out of iraq but in january 7,000 troops from Schofield here in Oahu alone will be going for a year tour with possibility of extention 6 months.
basically, i personally would have had no problems if we went in for the reasons they now claim. the rape rooms, mustard gasing of rival tribes by the thousands, etc. will iraq be better off now that we've removed Sadam? yes, for now. but we have no clue what the outcome of that area will be in the long term depending on the state we leave it in. the average american cannot understand the way of thinking that the middle east has so we can't completely know if it'll remain a democratic intity.
i've said enough. i get tired of talking about iraq. we need a time table to extract. not neccesarily a date but a set layout of events to be accomplished and then we come out. without a plan of extraction you always stay longer and find more reasons to stay.
speedy11309
11-13-05, 06:21 PM
im going to equate what nova just said to something that happens more commonly, its a really rough example. ok so say you have a crappy sports team, lets say the pittsburgh pirates. the pittsburgh pirates have SUCKED for the past 15 years. hands down sucked. no one will argue that. it is easier to get rid of the "head honcho", i.e. the manager, than get rid of the whole team? right? right. then you replace the manager with someone new. what are you left with? a team that still sucks, just a different face leading the team. again, this is a very rough analogy, not a very good one, but it gets my point across. think about what im saying, it is idiotic to completely lay every aspect of the blame on bush because bush only knows about what is told to him. by now he is so disconnected from every aspect of what we know of as normal life, that he cannot make judgements for himself. he does and says more or less what his advisors tell him to do. do you really think he investigates ANYTHING himself? writes ANY of his speeches himself? why do you think that lil chat he had with the troops on tv that was "unrehearsed" was actually rehearsed? he only knows what his advisors tell him. i dont really like bush either. i have my reasons that i wont get into. but i still think it is foolish to completely blame bush.
and as to the patriot act? why are you blaming bush for that? last time i checked, he didnt propose the bill nor did he approve it in both the house and senate. and your argument may be, well he signed it into law. well if he didnt, congress still could have put it into law anyways, which i think they would have.
ill end by saying this: the faster we get our troops home the better. i have the utmost respect for anyone who provides service to our country in the armed forces. anyone in the armed forces will always be and should be considered a hero. but if this countrys purpose in the world is to be "the great protector" and we have to go to every single country in the world to overthrow people like saddam hussein and kim jong il, im completely fine with that because those people deserve the right to live in freedom without fear. with that being said, i would still like them to be home this very minute if possible, but i highly doubt that will happen.
dok i understand you may support bush but one thing i have to ask is why haven't we gone after North Korea? Kim has the bomb, oppresses his people, has directly threatened us if we even mention an attempt to remove him from power. why have we not heard more on the issue about this?
Saddam was in violation of Resolution 1441, which was drafted to force Saddam to prove his compliance with an earlier resolution (can't remember number) that made it illegal for Iraq to possess long range missiles or WMD's. Resolution 1441 stated that he needed to provide an accounting of what happened to his WMD stockpiles and allow inspectors uninhibited access to Iraq. Neither of these events transpired, so action was taken, in accordance with the wording of Resolution 1441.
As far as I know, we have no such sanctions on North Korea, although I remember reading something not too long ago that mentioned the U.N. making preparations to slap a sanction or two on them...
as i said before, we need to punish those responsible for the bad info, bush, the bush administration, and anyone else i missed. i don't see any of that getting done, just rumors of an investigation.
i blame bush for the patriot act due to the fact that he was for it, and if you checked his last speech on it you would know.
if you're worried about helping people i suggest you go down to africa first, then to south america. a lot more people dying in those places and suffering than in the middle east.
dok, as i recall we did have inspectors in iraq and they uncovered nothing. as time has prooved, they were right and we should have listened to them.
dok, as i recall we did have inspectors in iraq and they uncovered nothing. as time has prooved, they were right and we should have listened to them.
They were not granted unlimited access to Iraq as stipulated in Resolution 1441. There were still areas they were not permitted to go, which kept Iraq in violation of 1441.
They were not granted unlimited access to Iraq as stipulated in Resolution 1441. There were still areas they were not permitted to go, which kept Iraq in violation of 1441.
thats true, but i mean, the US wouldn't let north korea in its most top secret areas. my point is we can't just demand to go into whatever area of a country that is not our own.
speedy11309
11-13-05, 11:48 PM
as i said before, we need to punish those responsible for the bad info, bush, the bush administration, and anyone else i missed. i don't see any of that getting done, just rumors of an investigation.
i blame bush for the patriot act due to the fact that he was for it, and if you checked his last speech on it you would know.
if you're worried about helping people i suggest you go down to africa first, then to south america. a lot more people dying in those places and suffering than in the middle east.
dok, as i recall we did have inspectors in iraq and they uncovered nothing. as time has prooved, they were right and we should have listened to them.
like i said before, you cannot blame bush for any information he spits out because HE DOES NONE OF THE RESEARCH HIMSELF. blame his advisors, his staff, whatever, but you cannot blame bush for that at all. by doing that, that is just stupidity.
as to the patriot act, would you blame me for it because i was for it? i highly doubt you would.
next with helping people, i think the united states gives the most money worldwide and the most man power to "helping people." so i dont really see what your beef is there.
oh and with the un inspectors being in there, as regards to them having complete access, they should have had it because the un demanded it otherwise military action would be taken. the un made numerous resolutions that threatened but were never backed up. hans blix had to submit in writing weeks in advance to the iraqi government and the un where and when he and his posse would be checking. you dont think that would be enough time to move something?
one of the reasons for not enforcing the rule with UN inspectors by sending troops to "assist" in compliance was that it would wind up costing to much. i don't even know how many hundreds of billions of dollars later this war costs and we thought sending troops to stand by inspectors was gonna hurt. if saddam had retaliated at that point we would have had the undeniable support of the rest of the world.
would the war be over now? maybe, maybe not but we would have more help in physical bodies to get it done.
Stone Fox
11-15-05, 05:02 AM
Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that his country needs him? :)
And for that matter, now that England needs him as well!
Rudegar
11-15-05, 05:15 AM
he's not for sharing his hidingplace
http://www.hobrad.com/acregree.htm
....
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.