0
Cajundude

Why does everyone downplay Bush when...

Recommended Posts

Quote

You really think we went to war over a bunch of sarin-filled artillery shells?



No. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts. Bush saw to it that Iraq would not impose another 9/11 against us.

Oh. And there was more than just a few sarin-filled shells. You're forgetting many other weapons found.



Forty-two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts. Bush saw to it that Iraq would not impose another 9/11 against us.



So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh?

One small problem... THE TERRORISTS AREN'T IN IRAQ.

They're in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and to a lesser degree, Iran).

If we spent 1/4 of the energy & resources in those places that we did in Iraq... Osama would be long since captured or dead.

This was wasn't about terrorism and it wasn't about WMD.

It was about oil and family grudges.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh?



That is just great, now it's an old issue. We can forget about it now.[:/]
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh?



That is just great, now it's an old issue. We can forget about it now.[:/]




According to Bush it is. He said they never claimed their was a 9/11 link with Iraq. Many conservatives on here have been quick to point out that the 9/11 commission confirmed that. So, how exactly does it go....when justifying Iraq, use 9/11, but when discussing 9/11 don't blame Iraq? I'm trying to figure this out so that I can be a good little republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The please explain this statement...

Quote

We went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts.



He was planning terrorist attacks but had no terrorists?

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to Bush the war on terror is over?



No, according to Bush, Iraq was never about terrorism. It was about WMD..errr, freeing an oppressed people. But definitely not terrorim. We didn't invade that terrorist supporing, WMD making, people oppressing regime because of ...ummm, yeah, why did we invade again? I forget the excuse du jour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Get real. The war was based on false premises



Get real. The war was based on the premise that SH had 12 years to show or prove the destruction of wmd he had (ask the kurds or shiites if you don't believe he had them). SH knew that use of military force was an option given non-compliance. He threw every roadblock he could in the way of UN inspectors, including oil-for-food bribes to UN cronies to keep the US off his back. More time? The inspectors' job wasn't to search and find wmd, it was their job to verify their destruction.

SH never believed GWB would come over the hill. SH made a bad move. He had the power to avoid the whole thing. He and his sons could be torturing and murdering as we speak. Then the extreme-left would be cryin' about how Bush's oil deals are keeping him from putting pressure on SH's human rights abuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then the extreme-left would be cryin' about how Bush's oil deals are keeping him from putting pressure on SH's human rights abuses.



If I'm not mistaken, we were already embargoing Iraqi oil.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

By jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! :S
-



Unnecessary. From what we've found so far, apparently one of the earlier requests worked...unless of course we've found some indication that he WAS building WMDs. Please fill me in if this is the case as I must have missed it.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


"One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.



You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either.



Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs?

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


"One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.



You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either.



Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs?

Blues,
Dave



He tried before, and only an idiot would stop trying. If Iran has succeeded in building the bomb, they will become invasion proof. North Korea is. For all his faults, I never saw him as being a dummy. He was very good at violating the letter and spirit of his surrender agreement, and then jumping back into compliance right as the threat of retribution came into play. His tactics right before the war started in 2003 were stalling tactics to make it to the hot summer. Unfortunately for him, Bush was already committed to making that deadline. Short of rolling in the tanks, there was never going to be a way to be even 90% sure that the weapons were gone.

"The" terrorists were not in Iraq. But terrorists, and support for it had always been there. Paying off families of suicide bombers in Israel is reason enough for me.

If PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs?



It was Saddam's obligation to prove he got rid of them. The war is Saddam's fault, no one else's.

Like a cop car chase. Someone gets hurt by the criminal being chased, there's allllways plenty of people eager to blame the cops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

By jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! :S
-



Unnecessary. From what we've found so far, apparently one of the earlier requests worked...unless of course we've found some indication that he WAS building WMDs. Please fill me in if this is the case as I must have missed it.



"Worked"? As in, we requested he get rid of his WMDs and he DID? Why then the big problem getting him to show us just how he got rid of them, and where they or their components ended up? You're pretty credulous, it seems, when believing that in the absence of proof S.H. could easily have given us, he did eliminate the weapons, just because we haven't yet found them in great substance.

I think that it is less compelling that we haven't found them in a sea of sand than it is that S.H. could easily have proven to us he had dismantled his program if he had, but he never did give the proof.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


"One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.



You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either.



Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs?



The fact that we have no proof from him of the dismantling and disposition of weapons he was known to have had, and used.

I find it troubling that you would sooner give the benefit of the doubt to a murderous genocidal madman whose sons tortured for sport (and who probably did, himself), when that man could easily have hidden his program (remember, he was not letting U.N. inspections happen -- so who knows what he might have been busy doing all that time). You are quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt than the president of the freest nation on earth. Strange.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up?



Probably either the fault of the boxing commission or the parole board, for letting that shit-sculpture ever be out on the streets or in a ring again.

:P

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He tried before, and only an idiot would stop trying. If Iran has succeeded in building the bomb, they will become invasion proof. North Korea is. For all his faults, I never saw him as being a dummy. He was very good at violating the letter and spirit of his surrender agreement, and then jumping back into compliance right as the threat of retribution came into play. His tactics right before the war started in 2003 were stalling tactics to make it to the hot summer. Unfortunately for him, Bush was already committed to making that deadline. Short of rolling in the tanks, there was never going to be a way to be even 90% sure that the weapons were gone.



Damn Kelp...We agree on something....How did that happen?

Quote

"The" terrorists were not in Iraq. But terrorists, and support for it had always been there. Paying off families of suicide bombers in Israel is reason enough for me.



Agreed, and I take it one step more...If you claim to be my enemy and make claims that you want to kill me..Shazam! I now consider you my enemy...You get what you ask for.

Quote

If PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up?



This was both funny as hell, and accurate.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why did we drop sanctions against Libya then?"
Beats me how we can even comtemplate doing business with Gadaffi after all the shit he was involved with.>:(
Ah, maybe it has something to do with this....
http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/lb/p0005.htm

Its getting busy down there.......:)
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Why did we drop sanctions against Libya then?"
Beats me how we can even comtemplate doing business with Gadaffi after all the shit he was involved with.



Maybe it has something to do with him making reperations for his past actions and willing giving up his WMD program?

Nah, that would make sense, and not nearly as glib as, and would not fit on a bumber sticker as "It's for the Oil"...
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Maybe it has something to do with him making reperations for his past actions"

So, if OBL came up with some loot he would be forgiven? Nah, I don't think so.

"would not fit on a bumber sticker as "It's for the Oil"...

Och Ron, you should know by now that I'm one the stronger critics of that particular theory. :)
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0