Is Bush as bad as Bin Laden?

Read the Downing St. memo
Then go back and read senior CIA officials who state that a *clear* message (no doubt delivered verbally, in the interests of plausible deniability) came from the white house to only bring evidence to them that supported going to war.
Then remember the CIA agent who cheny's office published in the news, in order to take revenge on her husband who came back with facts that did not support Iraqi WMD.
Then read all the shrub's speeches in which he says that Iraqi WMD are a fact.

America was suckered into this war, plain and simple. Impeachment is a good first step.

 

Downing Street Memo - you actually believe that?
There is a bridge here I can sell you.
What do you think about Area 51?
And you think the Plame "incident" has validity? If so, where is it now?

Rabid people like you will ensure that the Republicans stay in power - might as well start ginning up their base - you are already. Thanks

 

You know, I'd like to expose an inconsistency here...

For all those who think Bush lies, steals, cheats, etc., why would he NOT have "planted" WMD's in Iraq, after the invasion?

After all these supposed lengths the Bush/the U.S. went to in order to acquire supporting items for the war, would it not be MORE consistent after the invasion we "suddenly" found all sorts of secret WMD stockpiles? Thereby the world cheers Bush as the true hero, and guardian of the free world, propelling him to even GREATER heights than we could imagine.

If I were truly a power hungry, lying, thief, SOB, that's what I would have done...

Think about it...

Do you really think Bush and his "people" didn't know that not finding any significant evidence of WMD's would cause a severe backlash?

<_<

 

I have moments that I see a silver lining in the Iraqi debacle, in thinning out the ranks of deluded neo-cons. But then I remember that is not the case. Jingoism and cowardice go hand in hand.

 

You don't get it. First post #53 mentions nothing about the post being from another topic, face it, your wrong.

Second I did not agree with you. I pointed out that some asses were saved shortly after WWII ended. German asses for instance by the Marshall Plan.

Third read again my post on Poland we did save their asses by defeating the Nazi's. Therefore, they could not carry forth their plan to wipe out the Pole's. We also supplied the Polish military after they reorganized outside of Poland, bone up on your reading skills.

Fourth your reasoning that either you or I have not talk to a Pole that thanked us for defeating the Nazi's is irrelvant. You lack critical reasoning skills.

Fifth I simply refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. * PLONK *

 

You also lack any critical thinking skills. . . *PLONK*

 

Because they lack critical reasoning skills.


****** FLASH ******

NY TIMES reveals that Iraqi Generals were surprised and shocked when Saddam reveal to them that they were no WMD's in Iraqi shortly before the Iraqi invasion.

 

Not true right out of the gate.

Bush is a Christian, and I would bet the deed to my house that he would tell you that his killing Bin Laden has nothing to do with his salvation or his path to salvation, heaven or eternity.

Bush believes in Jesus Christ as his savior. That doesn't make him perfect, but it does make him redeemed. Aside from his belief that Christ died for the sins that he has committed, Bush (or any of us) can do nothing to assist(earn, win, marytr) in our own salvation, it's a free gift, it can't be earned... not by Bush or anyone.

It's free for you too...

 

Point one: Warrantless wiretaps. Domestic travel papers ("your papers are not in order. Come with us, please"). 'Nuff said, or do you need those explained?

Point two: Yes, we know that Dick Cheney has explained that deficits aren't important. That does not make them so. The national debt is now reaching historically high levels, and unlike the past most of it is held by foreigners; do you imagine that there would be no consequences for our economy if we someday repudiate that debt, or devalue the dollar?

Point three: The moral high ground is to remain true to our form of government, and not abandon it in panic when it seems expedient. Further, only a moral midget would equate war with adultery, and preventing unwanted pregnancies is obviously more moral than producing unwanted children to be abused and neglected.

Point four: Yes, the president should be focussed on national security. Not on winning the next election, and not on shovelling as much money and power as he can into the pockets of his father's friends and business associates. Attacking Afghanistan and stamping flat the Taliban was exactly the right thing to do to fight Al Qaeda terrorists. Attacking Iraq, and then trying to occupy it without enough boots on the ground was exactly the wrong thing to do, because it turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground, a replacement for the old Afghanistan. Meanwhile, while fat, dumb, and frightened Americans are distracted, tax cuts for the rich continue apace. The Ratfuck-In-Chief who did those things should be impeached for mis-, mal-, and non-feasance, at the very least. If go forbid another 9/11 happens, will you blame Bush, or praise him and ask him to do more to "protect" us?

 

Every single time I see a chauvinist propagandistic idiocy on a part of so-called educated people I raise a flag, and I did in your case. You said, “WE SAVED EVERYBODY’S ASS†during the WWII. I have proven to you several times that you are WRONG. Poland and other countries were used as sacrificial lambs and given to the Soviets at the end of WWII. So, Poles and other nationalities have suffered under the Soviet dominance. I suggest you visit Poland and attend any rally and speak to the Poles by stating “WE HAVE SAVED YOUR nice person DURING WWII†and I would love to see their reaction to a stupid Yankee like yourself, who instead of presenting cordial assessment of unfortunate lack of American interference in facilitating of freedom to the Poles and other Central European nations during the WWII and direct aftermath. Instead of spreading horrendous and hubristic arrogance to the Poles, you should focus on a least antagonistic approach, as Poland happens to be one of the major assets on the so-called War on Terror. Poles don’t hold grudges against the US in terms of the events of the WWII any more, but your attitude is only portraying USA as an arrogant nation.

Next time I suggest you phrase your statement like this “WE HAVE SAVED SOME ASSES†during the WWII instead of “WE SAVED EVERYBODY’S ASSES†.

Clearly, if I wouldn’t have been exposed to a very detailed knowledge about history of Central Europe, I wouldn’t have raised this flag, but fortunately I have had extensively.
I didn’t have to resort to copying and pasting directly, word by word from Wikipedia like you did. My questions about Poland were only to instigate about your self-proclaimed extensive knowledge on the subject that you continuously fail to explain up to last post.

People like you are a disgrace to our nation as you are further antagonizing our closest allies with your arrogant, uneducated idiocy. I feel ashamed for my country for having such assholes that damage our wonderful country in the eyes of the entire world.

CASE CLOSED as there is no hope for the "SAVIOR OF ALL WORLD'S ASSES" any more

 

Squid,

My point is that we haven't caught the perpetrators of 9/11. And the terrorists, the ones that attacked the US, the ones we are supposed to be fighting in the war on terror, did not come from A country (Iraq inlcuded), do not wear a uniform, do not have a standing army, do not have a government, etc. They are dispersed throught the world. They are actively carrying on with their training and plotting. There have conducted other attacks since 9/11 (Madrid and London for example). They are criminals, not nations. They need to be dealt with like criminals. They are (somewhat) analagous to the mafia. They are not analagous to Iraq, or Germany during WWII, etc. This is my point, I have made it numerous times on several threads, and I have never seen a coherent response to it.

Again, simply:

We should be focussing our efforts on the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT THE 9/11 ATTACK. We are not doing that. The war on Iraq is at BEST, only loosely conenected with 9/11, but is recieving the lions share of the money, people and resources in the war on terror.

Tell me how that makes sense to you? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

It's obvious the saying "you can't make everyone happy all the time just some of the time".

Reading some of the replies makes you want to vomit...

Compairing Bush to Hitler or to bin laden
There is no compairison Bush is not gathering up jews and gassing them.

Bush is not using chemical weapons on us citizens and killing them and burying them in mass graves...

Yes lets pull out of iraq over night, turn the counrty over to who ever is the strongest. We will show them! we will just go home and wait for some thing to happen here.. Ahh maybe we should close our borders too, That would protect us? right?

Next we should put on our blinders and just worry about US...
after all hussen only killed his own people who cares that he used chemical weapons on his own people... Its ok as long as it doesn't effect our lives..

I did notice that Clinton was cleaning house while in office, ie down sizing our military.. But alas we are building it back up, thank you god..

Again to many people walking around with blinders on, the world is a peachy place, be happy, make babies, spread STD's among our youth. Live off of our welfare system (even though you can work) it still pays you better than a normal job.. weeeeeee we are all having fun and are happily living our semi free lives in the great USA.

Just please Mr terrorists dont do anything to us again, just do it some where else thank you..

Makes me sick....

If you want to live the rosy life, live like the omish do plain and simple...

 

I still don't think he's worse.. but i do agree witht he rest... except kills.. i don't have the statistics on that. I'm sure if you count all the casualties in during the war, Richard may have a valid point though. Sure it's a war, but bin ladin didn't tell us to go over there. We are big boys. we made that decision on our own.

 

Squid and Wildkow.

Thats sounds like a good point Squid, but I want to invoke Wildkow here who said in reference to your post above:
"Because they lack critical reasoning skills."

Well lets see who has critical thinking skills:

Remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on the railroad car mobile weapons labs that Saddam supposedly had. Powell presented this information as absolute fact, not conjecture. And regarding that presentation Bush said this quote:

..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."--WP, May 31, 2003

Ok Wildkow, lets see who has critical thinking skills. Here's your chance.

Explain to me how Powell's presentation and Bush's statement are anything but lies. No mobile labs were ever found. The mobile trailers existed, but there was never any evidence found, before or after the war, that they had anything whatsoever to do with WMD's.

Powell's presentation is fact. I watched it on TV. Bush's statement about the presentation is fact. They were either outright lying deliberately, or presenting their misinformed opinion as fact, which is also lying. There is no other possibility!

And remember the aluminum tubes? The meeting between the 9/11 perpetrator (who's name I forget offhand) and Iraqi officials in Germany.. the one that never happened that Bush used as the Iraq-9/11 connection?

If you believe that the Bush administration did not cook the reasons for going to war in Iraq, you are seriously deluded. You are ignoring absolute verifiable facts to the contrary.

 

Squid, thanks for the ammo, this is getting fun!

You know, I'd like to expose an inconsistency here...

For all those who think Bush didn't lie, steal, cheat, etc. to get us into the Iraq war, why are there so many people (like me) who think that invading Afghanistan was appropriate, yet are so strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

Weren't both pre-emptive wars started by George Bush? We hear/read people arguing for/against the Iraq war all the time, on Prius Chat, other websites, talk radio, television, in the editorial pages, etc. Its a very contentious issue. But we almost never hear anyone complaining about the war in Afghanistan. How can that be? The same people who support Bush's pre-empive war in Afghanistan don't support his pre-empive war in Iraq. When both are equal parts (in your view) of the war on terror?

Think about it...

Are you Bush supporters missing something? Are you lacking in critical thinking skills, and just supporting Bush because he is out there fighting the ragheads, regardless of who they are, what they did, or what they represent?

Do you really think that millions of people decided that one war was justified an the other not without a reason? Do you believe we didn't think about it before coming to that appaarently incongruent conclusion?

 

You also lack critial reasoning skills. *PLONK*

 

I don't believe that Bush is a liar and I don't think you can find one nation (except Iraq) that did not believe that Saddam did not have WMD's.

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]

In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.

 

Do you really believe President Bush and OBL are to be viewed as described above? No


[attachmentid=2691]
LOL this was so funny

 

Coming from someone who lacks any kind of thinking and common knowledge, that's hillarious :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

This is so we can get back to the original statement that started this whole thing.

Do you really believe President Bush and OBL are to be viewed as described above?

A simple yes or no would do.