|
Post by Regarding Bush on Oct 17, 2004 17:53:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evidence enough on Oct 17, 2004 17:54:56 GMT -5
Most of the world and many American's are against what Bush did by going into Iraq.
Our country was a lot safer before he did that.
|
|
|
Post by k on Oct 17, 2004 19:31:51 GMT -5
Most of the world and many American's are against what Bush did by going into Iraq.
Our country was a lot safer before he did that. Logged ========= Prove it with numbers please. You cannot do that. America doesn't need permission from other countries. We are not in the European Economic Union (thank goodness). How was our country "safer?' Look at the period from 1993 until 2001 and tell me it was "safer". Some people wouldn't know what safer means if it bit them on the arse!
Any terrorist in ANY Muslim country must be defeated. America must how them who is boss. America must never let Paris, Brussells, Rome, Madrid, Berlin, or Geneva tell them how to run foreign affairs.
Now we find out that Zaraqawi has ties to Al-Qaida.
As the people in the WTC or Pentagon, USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, and elsewhere if the world has become more dangerous. Don't listen to that little jerk who runs the UN.
|
|
|
Post by Bush or Sadam on Oct 17, 2004 20:09:29 GMT -5
Any terrorist in ANY Muslim country must be defeated. America must how them who is boss. America must never let Paris, Brussells, Rome, Madrid, Berlin, or Geneva tell them how to run foreign affairs. ________________________________ What business is it of George Bushes what happens in Muslim countries? You say America must not let others run our country but you seem to think it is alright to go into Muslim countries and run their affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 18, 2004 9:27:33 GMT -5
Somewhere down the road Bush must have lost his wisdom! Or he doesn't know how to put it in practice...
“I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you ....but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you…..I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.”
George W. Bush Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate October 11, 2000
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that....
....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker ."
George W. Bush First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate October 3, 2000
"....It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
George W. Bush Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate October 11, 2000
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 18, 2004 10:51:14 GMT -5
Bertine,
Is is safe then to say that you agree with what Bush says? ;D
Robb
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 18, 2004 14:31:04 GMT -5
It is Bryan's trade mark to not respond to any questions or comments others make in response to his rantings. He also seems unwilling to put any effort into supporting his statements. When pressed there are a number of ploys he has used rather than make any attempt to support his position. You make it sound like I'm some kind of weasel... Like I said... It's fruitless... So why should I waste my time?
|
|
|
Post by Its me again on Oct 18, 2004 14:32:23 GMT -5
K wrote: Now we find out that Zaraqawi has ties to Al-Qaida. _____________ The same way as we knew that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction I guess.........
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 18, 2004 14:40:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 18, 2004 15:07:00 GMT -5
Bryan,
Don't expect the liberals and Bush haters amoung us to be consistant... it doesn't fit with their AGENDA.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Bush and the rest on Oct 18, 2004 17:05:46 GMT -5
Just a thought.... It wasn’t just bush who believed he had WMD…. So did Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, and on and on and on… Bush was the president, not the others mentioned. He had the intellegence reports and the means to find out more information. He chose to act on incomplete and inaccurate information. Everyone else can see that it was a mistake, admit they made it, and move on in ways dictated by the facts at hand today rather than attempting to rewrite history. Bush was wrong. Or he knew the facts and lied to the American people. Either way he is unwilling to accept the responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 18, 2004 18:50:51 GMT -5
Bush was the president, not the others mentioned. He had the intellegence reports and the means to find out more information. He chose to act on incomplete and inaccurate information. Everyone else can see that it was a mistake, admit they made it, and move on in ways dictated by the facts at hand today rather than attempting to rewrite history. Bush was wrong. Or he knew the facts and lied to the American people. Either way he is unwilling to accept the responsibility. Yes robb... I see your point now...
|
|
|
Post by Mr Weasel on Oct 18, 2004 20:45:49 GMT -5
Yes robb... I see your point now... Ploy #2 in this topic. You said it.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 19, 2004 0:37:13 GMT -5
Mr. Weasel,
You seem to be using some kind of ploy by not stating your real name when calling Bryan out publically.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 19, 2004 7:24:59 GMT -5
I agreed with what he said back then in 2000. Unfortunately his policies now don't back up his 'convictions' of then... It was Bush who decided to go to war before the inspectors could finish their job. If he had let them finish their work, we may have known then what we know now. At least Kerry has changed his mind in the right direction now! I can't understand that many people don't see how serious this is: This nation was scared into this war with a threat of WMD's, soldiers put their life on the line thinking their country was under a serious threat, and now there appears to be no grounds for that! Lol, it seems more like a ploy to me to harp about real names rather than the real issues.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 19, 2004 11:33:39 GMT -5
you took the words right out of my mouth....
|
|
|
Post by To Bertine on Oct 20, 2004 5:53:28 GMT -5
You are too young to remember 1991 when sweet Saddam's tanks rolled into Kuwait. And liberal JOhn Kerry voted AGAINST military action! When scud missiles were being fired into Israel. Saddam USED chemical gas against the Kurds. Even president Clinton said there were WMD there. Who knows for sure. Some of the weapons may have been taken to Syria.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 22, 2004 13:42:46 GMT -5
And did you know that Kerry said a couple months ago that even knowing what he knows now, he STILL would have voted for the action we took in Iraq? In the debate, he performed one of his famous flip-flops on that as well. He tried to say that he WOULDN'T have done the same thing (when just a few weeks before the debate, he'd said just the opposite!). What a spinless individual.
That's like an insult to the soldiers who are supporting the action in Iraq (which happens to be the majority of our military).
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 22, 2004 18:48:52 GMT -5
Actually, I was 8 and remember very well seeing on TV how the 1st Gulf War started, I remember my grandma sighing deeply and starting a prayer.
I thought Kerry's main argument against Bush was how he handled the war: no convincing coalition to share the burdens with and no plan to win the peace.
You should note that even if Kerry stands closer to my views and Europeans than Bush, he still stands closer to Bush than he stands to Europe.
Nobody blames soldiers that just do what they are told. I'm not gonna change my opinion just becos it would 'politically incorrect' or something towards the soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 22, 2004 19:00:00 GMT -5
I thought Kerry's main argument against Bush was how he handled the war: no convincing coalition to share the burdens with and no plan to win the peace. hindsight is always 20/20 Assessing the Bush Presidency By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Oct 21, 2004 Hide the plants! Political partisans are sucking much of the air out of the environment with insane rants, and it's tough to get oxygen. So I am going to try something new by attempting to evaluate the Bush presidency using simple logic and stone cold facts. Please don't hate me.
The President's biggest problem is bad foreign intelligence. The CIA bungled the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction scenario and failed to predict the toxic problems that have occurred in Iraq after Saddam's fall. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI both failed to detect the 9/11 plot. All of this happened on Bush's watch.
In response to those catastrophic intelligence failures, the President has said little. It took him forever to remove CIA chief George Tenet and Mr. Bush is reluctant to address the WMD and Iraqi controversies, preferring to paint an optimistic picture of the future.
But millions of Americans are deeply troubled by the chaos in Iraq and the President's hopeful outlook is not soothing that apprehension. Thus, Mr. Bush is fighting for his political life.
On the homefront, things are better. Despite democratic hysteria, the economic sky is not falling. Unemployment is less than it was when Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, and most Americans are living comfortable lives. The situation does vary from state to state, however. Florida, for example, is booming, while Ohio is struggling. That situation makes the electoral vote outlook a tossup.
Gas prices are way up, but Americans seem to be taking that in stride. Once again, the President has not said much about rising fuel prices, concentrating on the big picture, which is that the U.S. economy is much better than that in most other developed countries.
On social issues, Mr. Bush has played it smart. He and his conservative base are compatible and the President sincerely believes that gay marriage, partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives are subjects worth taking a strong stand on. Bush's support is much more fervent than Kerry's, according to all the polls, and that's because of his social outlook.
The presidency of George W. Bush is hard to evaluate because of the war on terror, which has consumed much of his time. The No Child Left Behind Act is a vast improvement over the directionless academic chaos that had been plaguing many American school districts. The funding issue is largely bogus: many states simply can't spend all the money that is available because of poor administration.
Homeland Security is debatable, but what is undeniable is that we have not been hit again by Al Qaeda. That's a big win for Mr. Bush.
So summing up, the President's big downside is the intelligence debacle and his failure to adequately explain it. His big plus is that most Americans like him, and his conservative base reveres him. If he defeats John Kerry, he will do it on who he is, rather than what he's done.
Next week in this space we will analyze the Kerry challenge. See you then.
|
|