Opinons on Bush & Iraq?

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=Bulgeboy link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#33 date=01/15/04 at 12:46:36]Wow.  Between Clinton-venom and the Bush-apologists, this thread is a bit too far out there for me to participate in.  I'll steer clear - hope the war is over soon and that Bush is NOT re-elected.  I doubt our country could survive a second term of this madness.[/quote]
Same could be said about you, only reversed:

Clinton-apologists and Bush-venom

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well jay...its like this...the cost for freedom some times is lives...people much greater than you or i have paid the ultimate price to protect the ideal of freedom...who defines what freedom is...you and i ultimately, but the people that we elect...whether YOU voted for who won or not is insignificant...if your candiate lost...you didnt effectively use your infuence enough, via networking, campaigning, town hall meetings, organizing etc...so if you dont like the results of this election...work a little harder next time...but we must bear the responsibility of who is in office...THAT being said...BJ vs lives...well...we open up a big ole can of worms there... yep i agree...id vote for a guy that got a BJ over someone that took some lives..if it were only that simple...you fail to answer the second part of that question EVERY time its answered...if the president of the united states, gets up and lies under oath, sworn to God, and looks the camera full on and says to the legislative/judicial branch of the government AND every person in the united states...'i did not have sex with that woman'...what did he just do?...for my money...just spit in my face and the face of every other american, AND everything that his office represents...AND IF...he cant tell the truth about a simple blow job...what else is he hiding?...what else is he looking in the camera and telling us?...that voice didnt waiver...those eyes didnt blink...hes good at lying...the difference between the BJ and the war...simply...clinton...WAS there he GOT the BJ he knew he was lying...he took a calculated risk in telling the lie and lost...now bush...whether you like him or not...a president is only as good as his advisors..and the information he is given...i dont know...i wasnt there...neither was anyone in this chatroom...he may have had ALL the facts...theres no WMD...no risk from iraq at all...but on the other side of that...he may have been given a bunch of hooey too...but i guess we will never know...since none of us was there...and...ive yet to hear anyone point a finger at the intel yet...the CIA...
hey the brits came up with the same results as we did...ill guarantee they didnt rely solely on us for their decision to participate...

 

[13788]

Inwood: Actually Gig it would be great if you did say more. Did you read the links or did you just look at the address and judge by that.

Pecker had made a comment about no newspaper finding that Gore had gotten more votes then Bush. I remembered some things I read and put it up for him to take a look at if he wanted. Those articles do mention that if the count had continued and used Bush's criteria Gore would have won. They also said that using various scenarios neither candidate would have won by more then 1,700 votes at the most. But the one link that is a commentary made what I thought was an important comment. That both parties went into the litigation to find the method that they thought benefited them. Her comment was that what they actually should be doing is finding the method that best shows what the voters want.

The Gore site was thrown in for fun. Also it was also a diversion. If you had actually opened the sites you could have had more fun zinging the link from World Socialist Web Site. But even that site is reporting results of investigations by major newspapers.

But since you seem to consider most major news outlets that I know of to be unreliable, what news sources do you consider to be reliable?

Has Bush lied? I did a thread on this. Got some comment but not a lot. When a president relies on many, many people to pull together information to be used in determining government policy and some of it turns out to be wrong did the President lie by using it? I'm not sure that I can say that Bush intentionally told a falsehood. I think it can be said that his administration was ready to give greater weight to intelligence that supported their predetermined view regardless of its veracity. But that isn't lying. It's more poor judgment. WMD...nuclear is harder to pull off; biological agents can be manufactured very easily. The difficulty is in making them effective weapons. That requires much more infrastructure. But as can be seen by our anthrax scare even if it only kills a few people the act can do quite a bit of economic damage.

No, I think more of us remember the bombing of the Twin Towers. We may never know what all Clinton ordered done. Probably more then you think but maybe not as much as you say you want. As to not doing something when the US is attacked what did Reagan/Bush 1 do when the USS Stark was bombed by Iraq on May 17, 1987. Nothing. Maybe that was when Saddam decided we weren't going to interfere with his plans. Was it because we were supporting Iraq against Iran at the time? More people died in that bombing then at the first bombing of the Towers.

Gig, list some of the blatant lies Clinton admin told. You've already used the blowjob one. Need some new ones. And the recount had not been going on for months on end. Two at most.

As to the moral equivalence of lies, my upbringing says a lie is a lie is a lie. There are no small lies or big lies. They're all lies.

On the bit about stock market up and rates way down. In the Wall Street Journal today a liberal commentator/reporter on economic matters gives Bush a big hurrah for his fiscal policies all being on the spot. (Damn those liberals will they stop at nothing.) Of course in a front page article the Journal itself had a story on the high level of US debt that foreigners have bought. The problem the Journal says is if these investors get nervous about our debt, and the Journal says they are, if they start selling in earnest then stocks will tumble, rates will soar and the US will slide back into recession. That appears to be the official stance of the Journal.

Jerkin makes a good point that you have to work to get the politicians you support elected. When someone wins they get to try to set the agenda. Doesn't mean that they'll get what they want though. Because even if the other party is in the minority those people were are also elected by voters and they have every right to undermine the majority's efforts to enact the majority agenda.

And Gig actually I'm glad your back. I enjoy reading your posts even when you lose it.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#20 date=01/15/04 at 00:38:36]Are you aware of how many more people died under the hand of Saddam?  10 times more, I'm sure.[/quote]
Okay, so ten times more died under Saddam (who reigned for over twenty years, might I add) than died under Bush in less than one year. Even Bush can add that up.

Need we not forget Saddam's little mass genocide?

No, I haven't forgotten about the little mass genocide ordered by Ronald Reagan. (In case you've forgotten, Saddam's been a CIA agent since '63.) You're not helping your cause any.

We liberated a people from a tyrannical, murderous dictator.  They people are grateful,  I hear reports of them thanking American soldiers on the street despite the annoyances of not having power and so on and so forth.

'Thanking'? Maybe there's a society where pointing a gun at someone and squeezing the trigger, maybe sneaking up behind someone and strangling them with chicken wire, is a gesture of thanks; I haven't really studied anthropology well enough to know for sure. Your anonymous 'reports' are getting old.

'Annoyances'? I wouldn't call the inability to drink clean water and the constant fear of being abducted 'annoyances'.

So going back to what I was trying to say, Bush hasn't lied because we can't PROVE he has lied.  Bush Haters just jump to that conclusion because... surprise... they hate him.  Clinton, however, lied to the country UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW.

One: Clinton's no longer president. Can't you let it go, or shall I start applying all relevant sections of my net.loon index to your posts?
Two: The only way Bush could've not lied is if he were completely ignorant of everything the CIA and the UN said. Possible, but then someone in Bush's staff - Cheney, Powell, Rove, take your pick - isn't doing his job.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: im kinda going against better judgement to jump back in this...but..since when has that ever stopped me?... ive asked this question a couple of times...and not gotten any takers...but ill ask again...lets say that gore wins in 2000...do you REALLY think we would be better off?...i mean really...do some soul searching here people and think about how a gore/lieberman white house would have handled 9/11...personally i think ALGORE woulda shit his pants and had a heart attack on 9/11...and lieberman would be MIA...hiding under a table somewhere not knowing what to do...because thats the option you guys are arguing for in essense...im not trying to be mean or anything...but this has turned into this huge bitchfest about bush...but what if....

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=40#44 date=01/15/04 at 19:50:05]ive asked this question a couple of times...and not gotten any takers...but ill ask again...lets say that gore wins in 2000...do you REALLY think we would be better off?...i mean really...do some soul searching here people and think about how a gore/lieberman white house would have handled 9/11...personally i think ALGORE woulda shit his pants and had a heart attack on 9/11.[/quote]

It's all hypothetical, but what makes you think that the US would have been targeted on 9/11 with Al Gore in the White House?

And then -- Gore didn't 'shit his pants' during previous terrorist attacks. The 1993 WTC truck-bombing resulted in an arrest and a conviction; the 1998 Embassy bombings resulted in arrests and convictions. Both of these investigations were completed without further loss of Americans' lives.

Perhaps a Gore/Lieberman White House would have concluded the USS Cole investigation much sooner, resulting in arrests of Al-Qaeda personnel that would have disrupted the 9/11 plans.

Then again, maybe not, but you've invited speculation about something that can't be proven, and I think it's far more reasonable to speculate that the fullness of the 9/11 tragedy could have been avoided rather than that the president would 'shit his pants' and have a 'heart attack'.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...algore wasnt the president then was he?...lets be honest...the only real job that the vice pres has, while the president is still alive is...to be the tie-breaker if there is a tie on legislation in the senate...its a pretty cushy job...speculation...well...isnt that what ALL of this is?...i mean, i dont think there are any cabinet members here in our group...and NONE participating in this discussion...so we dont KNOW..for SURE...what information led up to the decision to go to war with iraq...that not correct?...so we are SPECULATING as well on this subject...

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Sorry to veer this a touch off-topic again, but...

This 'economic recovery' is being based on a very unsteady foundation. Rapidly devaluing currency is not a very sensible way of dealing with problems, as it leads to high inflation and then high interest rates to combat it with. The current devaluation is partly to enable Bush to keep spending at his current unprecedented rate, but the effects are currently being offset by the Japanese and Chinese governments printing money and buying dollars to give addtional foundation to their own currencies. This will not continue forever.

Once the correction occurs you will just be left with several $bn of debt (incurring several $m interest), high interest rates (with the problems that that brings - house reposessions, bad debt etc.) and high inflation. For a good example of rapid valuation corrections occuring you can look up the UK being ejected from the European ERM in the late 80s/early 90s - I think interest rates peaked at around 15% and inflation was similar. Thousands of people had their houses repossessed as a result. Not bad for a 3rd world country, but not so impressive for one of the worlds largest economies.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: In addition,

By far the greatest terrorist threat that is likely to occur would be a 'dirty bomb' (a standard bomb wrapped in radioactive material) - this requires little technical ability to construct (far less than bio weapons and requiring less space than standard chemical) and would create widespread panic. By far the most likely source of material for such a device would be the former USSR - after all, several kgs of radioactive materials have gone missing since its collapse. Everyone also seems to forget that the 9/11 attack was carried out with knives - not nuclear, biological nor chemical weapons just standard knives. Why a terrorist organisation is going to go through all the troubles of developing biological or chemical weapons when they can cause that much destruction with a bit of cutlery is a very valid question.

As for the Iraq war not being about WMD...

Why then base the decision on going to war (even if it was for show) on the UN inspections? The WMD issue was brought about because it was the easiest way of scaring the public into supporting a war. Starting a war solely for regime change is also illegal under international law.

After all, I'm sure well over half the world's population would LOVE to see regime change in the US right this moment...
(Sorry - that just kinda slipped out )

 

[jay_too]

I know this is unfair to bring up reality and facts but..

Gore served in Vietnam.

Who among the Republican leadership in the White House and Congress made to that far-off country? Not Bush, Not Cheney, Not Frisk, Not Hassert, Not DeLay. Is it because they were panty-waists [as my great-grandmother would say] or snorting coke or dipping LSD or avoiding military service as many in that generation did? To hypothetically question Gore's courage and patritotism does nothing to advance the patriotism of the slackers, or those who chose not to go.

Oh yeah, this is a discussion about Bush and Iraq.

jay

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: jay, your little snide remarks are tiresome...at best...mmm...lots of people served at the TIME of viet nam...lots LESS served IN viet nam...just because someone served at the time viet nam was going on..whether or not they were 'in country' or not...makes them a viet nam vet...i doubt whether big al was in a trench somewhere getting mortars lobbed at him...there IS a difference you know...AND talking about coke sniffing draft dodgers...youve just described the pride and joy of the democratic party...thats right...'bill clinton'...next...

 

[13788]

mindseye: Bill Clinton, an Oxford scholar, received a (legal) deferment so that he could complete his education. If that constitutes 'draft dodging', then Vice-Resident Cheney a draft-dodger for the exact same reason. Both received educational deferments during the Vietnam conflict. Following their respective graduations, Clinton entered (not dodged) the draft, but drew a high number, while Cheney continued to receive deferments until he was no longer eligible.

Gore, on the other hand, dodged the draft completely: by volunteering. He served a two-year tour of duty, which included five months in Vietnam. True, he wasn't on the front lines -- he was a Harvard graduate, and the Army assigned him to the Corps of Engineers -- but he did his job and followed orders.

Bush went missing for an entire year of his National Guard service.

Whose patriotism are you questioning again -- the ticket containing the person who registered and the person who served, or the ticket containing the person who never registered and the person who went AWOL during his service?

Oh, and to tie this back into Iraq: which ticket was respectful enough to our servicemen not to desecrate their uniform by wearing it for a photo-op?

I'm hardly a Clinton apologist -- I voted against him in both '92 and '96, in fact -- but your "shit his pants" comment about Al Gore was really uncalled-for and unsupportable.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: whoa whoa whoa there mindseye...im FROM arkansas...and the legend of the slick one is well known...he was called up...a couple of times...he had orders to report...and the army was looking for him for some time...and was bailed out by some general...to this day...that matter is unresolved...he was called...and didnt report...correct, he did get a deferment...but when that ran out...graduated...he was called again...now... you are acting like gore was some kind of war hero...good grief...this whole thing is based on opinions...and i stated mine...and AM entitled to it...just like you guys are entitled to your opinions...or is that only for liberals?...

 

[13788]

Inwood: Jerkin, where are some links to coke sniffing by Clinton? Everytime I put it in Google all I get is Bush coke sniffing. I mean I know he didn't "inhale" but I've never heard anything about cocaine.

Al Gore may have been in the engineers but he apparently was assigned as a military reporter to Vietnam. His time in Vietnam was 5 months but the typical tour was a year for most soldiers who served there.

Bush served in the National Guard. Supposedly in a unit called the "Champagne Unit" since the troops in it were either sons of prominent Texas policitians or football players from the home team so they wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. And yes apparently where he was for a year when he was supposed to be in Alabama is uncertain at least regarding his service. But both he and Gore received Honorable Discharges so as far as the Armed Forces are concerned things were hunky dory with both. As to Clinton supposedly being bailed out by some general - yes I saw some things on Clinton's deferrments through Google but nothing specifically about a general -- well both Bush and Gore had powerful fathers and got what they need from family connections. They didn't need a General to help them.

Would we be better off. Well we couldn't be worse off. I mean we suffered a terrorist attack that killed close to 3,000 people and we're fighting three wars to varying degrees, economy is troubled (some signs it's recovering but financial mavens attach caveats).

I don't think Al would have shit in his pants any more then Bush looked like he did during his first speech that day. He looked much better in his second speech. (But to be fair to both -- at the moment of the first speech there was the potential that up to 50,000 citizens might have been killed--I think that would've made any president plotz regardless of party.)

It's hard to say how a person would do in stressful situations. It's not like Al hasn't had to deal with extremely stressful situations. His son was run down by a car in front of him. It's not the same as a war but try telling that to any parent in the same situation.

Would he have done better? Since he would probably have received the same intelligence reports that Bush did not much would have changed there. I think that Gore's team would have at least had their antenna up regarding Al Queda more so then Bush's team but again this information comes through CIA and so only so much could be done by either team.

I don't think Al would have had any problem sending troops into Iraq if the intelligence was there to prove it had a role in 9/11. He was a strong backer of the war on Yugoslavia. I don't think he would have unilaterally decided to invade Iraq just to get rid of Saddam. And since Lieberman voted to give Bush the power to go into Iraq it doesn't seem he has a problem with using force either.

If you can show otherwise with some links to back up what you say great. I'd love to read them. It's always good to know more about the people who lead this country. It keeps one from getting too starry eyed over some pretty face and empty mind.

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=40#52 date=01/16/04 at 17:46:54]whoa whoa whoa there mindseye...im FROM arkansas...and the legend of the slick one is well known...he was called up...a couple of times...he had orders to report...and the army was looking for him for some time...and was bailed out by some general...to this day...that matter is unresolved...he was called...and didnt report...correct, he did get a deferment...but when that ran out...graduated...he was called again...[/quote]

I went back to double-check this, and you're partially right: He received an induction notice in April 1969 while he was still enrolled in school (he had previously been granted a student deferment); he finished the semester and returned home that summer. By that time he had received a second notice (so your assertion of "a couple of times" is correct). He filed an appeal, which was granted.

good grief...this whole thing is based on opinions...and i stated mine...and AM entitled to it...just like you guys are entitled to your opinions...or is that only for liberals?...

*sigh* Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it involves the imagined bodily functions of an elected official.

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=40#50 date=01/16/04 at 13:36:22]jay, your little snide remarks are tiresome...at best...mmm ...[/quote]

live with it.

jay

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=40#43 date=01/15/04 at 18:08:00]
Okay, so ten times more died under Saddam (who reigned for over twenty years, might I add) than died under Bush in less than one year. [/quote]

You and Gig have done an interesting analysis and proved Bush is twice as effective in killing Iraqis as Saddam.

jay

 

[jonb]

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=40#56 date=01/17/04 at 03:37:24]

You and Gig have done an interesting analysis and proved Bush is twice as effective in killing Iraqis as Saddam.[/quote]
You should know Republicans suck at math. Look at trickle-down economics. Or the new tax-cut voodoo, 'starving the beast' which basically predicts that for every dollar of taxes cut, a fraction of a dollar of expenditures will be cut, thus reducing the deficit. (I'm not making this up. They actually think that by making $1000 less and spending $500 less you make more money.)

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...if republicans suck at math...democrats are 'black belts' at spending...

 

[13788]

niner: interesting take, since Bush brought the US from a giant surplus of money (thanks to the Clinton Administration) to the largest deficit in the history of the US.