Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leafs Suck

Dishonest Dubya

Recommended Posts

I like that "Shame on...shame on you" quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Bush doing cocaine and being AWOL in the early 70's when others were dying in Vietnam. He's one brave mofo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

These people were separatists too:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ  

"Btw, way to show support to terrorism, that's sick." - poster who shall remain nameless  

Umm, and Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn't make Hippy Hank a herrenvolkist. Please, Leafs Suck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya/

But I did appreciate this site, scathing but well done, right on really. I'm glad I'm not living in the USA these days. Used to be a great country once upon a time, but is no longer respected internationally, in serious decline for sure.:nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think that whatever harm bush has done to USA's international reputation will necissarily live long after he is gone. These things go in cycles.

As much as I am not for Bush and really don't care for him, I am getting a bit tired of the lampoons... I personally prefer not to think of him as stupid (even if his speeches make me cringe at times). I'd rather be beaten by the Senators than the Blues. I mean, the Senators are tough and you can't expect to consistently win, but the Blues? C'mon, we can't get beat by the Blues!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, and Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn't make Hippy Hank a herrenvolkist. Please, Leafs Suck...

FLQ, Al Quada, same thing. Both terrorists. You gonna defend FLQ now too? and frankly what is so wrong with what I said? Our govener general sure thinks they're fine people, seeing how her husband hung around with them and she praised a free Quebec.

But according to Fanpuck I support terrorism. Still waiting for him to apologize. Glad the mods on this site have such high moral standards and resepct other posters.

Maybe he should go to this site:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forc...ties/index.html

Look threw the dead Americans in the war he supports yet refuses to fight in.

Edited by Leafs Suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLQ, Al Quada, same thing. Both terrorists. You gonna defend FLQ now too? and frankly what is so wrong with what I said? Our govener general sure thinks they're fine people, seeing how her husband hung around with them and she praised a free Quebec.

But according to Fanpuck I support terrorism. Still waiting for him to apologize. Glad the mods on this site have such high moral standards and resepct other posters.

Maybe he should go to this site:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forc...ties/index.html

Look threw the dead Americans in the war he supports yet refuses to fight in.

Al Qaeda is active, FLQ isn't.

Dismissing separatism by citing the FLQ is about as logical as dismissing Islam by citing Al Qaeda. Jean Luc said this when he noted that Hitler's culinary ideology does not invalidate vegetarianism.

There might be other reasons that separatism is wrong. I think there are, but FLQ ain't particularly one of them. Just about every -ism has a unnaceptably radical wing. Is England's treatment of the Irish throughout history ok because of the IRA? Are the Basque not entitled to sovereignty because of their terrorists? Do militiamen render the right-wing incorrect on taxation? Does the FARQ represent the left wing?

I don't understand the point of linking to my country's dead. Is this supposed to be teasing? Nobody is happy that so many young people are dying and we all know that they are.

Edited by simonus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That post practically deserves a slow clap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I did appreciate this site, scathing but well done, right on really. I'm glad I'm not living in the USA these days. Used to be a great country once upon a time, but is no longer respected internationally, in serious decline for sure.:nono:

Typical. Those living outside the US are glad they are outside - but what you don't realize is that most living in the US wouldn't want to live anywhere else! And frankly, I don't blame them - the US is a great nation. I find this topic funny in that President Bush is being considered dishonest - while his predecessor was a proven liar! Personally, I look at politics like a game of poker - I expect players to bluff and even lie to support the bluff - but never cheat. Mainly because the cards they hold represent the interests of the people who elected them. The President may need to bluff now and then and not tell the whole story - but the question is, are his interests in winning the hand for the electorate .... or for himself? President Bush has made some poor choices - most likely in the evaluation of the data assembled, and probably didn't react any differently than President Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry would have done (I seem to recall President Clinton ordering the bombing of an African nation! - was that to get the news off of his sex scandle???). I don't see President Bush looking out for his own legacy or interests in the same way as I remember President Clinton looking out for HIS own legacy and interests!

But thank God we live in Canada where we have a Prime Minister who would never allow a scandle to rock his government! (hmmm HRDC sponsorship scandle anyone???) No - he won't let a silly thing like that to shake him any! Damn those Yankees! Cuz our government & leaders are soooooo much better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical. Those living outside the US are glad they are outside - but what you don't realize is that most living in the US wouldn't want to live anywhere else! And frankly, I don't blame them - the US is a great nation. I find this topic funny in that President Bush is being considered dishonest - while his predecessor was a proven liar!

Lying about getting blown by a fat cow is a tad less severe than lying about a country having big weapons and the intent to use them so that you can call for a war that costs many people their lives on both sides.

But anyways...

has anyone really trusted a politician in their lifetime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lying about getting blown by a fat cow is a tad less severe than lying about a country having big weapons and the intent to use them so that you can call for a war that costs many people their lives on both sides.

Please don't forget what got the whole thing started as far as President Bush was concerned ... the unprecedented, premeditated, unprovoked attack on the thousands of innocents in the World Trade Center on September 11th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't forget what got the whole thing started as far as President Bush was concerned ... the unprecedented, premeditated, unprovoked attack on the thousands of innocents in the World Trade Center on September 11th.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read that.

Is that a rebuttal or an agreement with what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think President Bush asked to start a war against terrorism - he responded to the act of terrorism. I don't believe he intentionally lied - I believe he was wrong in many parts. But I also believe that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction, it was clear that Hussein was a threat that needed to be dealt with. Bush's premise may have been false (revenge or weapons of mass destruction), but I'm not sure that the world isn't a safer place now. I found it interesting how little the surrounding governments tried to stop the US. I find it interesting that we forget (or choose to see Bush as a greater enemy than Hussein) that Hussein DID use weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds - there was no reason to believe Hussein WOULDN'T do it again!

I'll sum up my opinion this way ... it is way easier for me to find fault in my brother or sister than fault in a person on the other side of the planet, but in the end, even if I disagree with my brother or sister - I choose to trust them.

I believe it is easier for us to find fault with the US government because we know so much about them, but in the end I don't believe the US wants to control the world or hurt other people groups (I think, like us, they simply want a better lifestyle and to live in peace) - so, in the end - I choose to trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on this site, :hlogo: Talk >>> Political Discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think on this site, :hlogo: Talk >>> Political Discussions

Welcome to The Lounge.

Everything but Habs discussion.

In response to revvvrob,

I see no link between Hussein and the terrorist attack on Sept 11. By the way, whatever happened to the "Find Osama" mission? He was the direct mastermind behind the September 11 attacks.

And yes, while the war on Osama and the attempt to find him was (is?) totally justified, going into Iraq to oust Hussein because of WMD's (that did not/do not exist) is something that shows a blatant misuse of power on Bush's part.

He didn't ask to start the war on terrorism....but he's certainly manipulated it to fit his own agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see no link between Hussein and the terrorist attack on Sept 11. By the way, whatever happened to the "Find Osama" mission? He was the direct mastermind behind the September 11 attacks.

And yes, while the war on Osama and the attempt to find him was (is?) totally justified, going into Iraq to oust Hussein because of WMD's (that did not/do not exist) is something that shows a blatant misuse of power on Bush's part.

He didn't ask to start the war on terrorism....but he's certainly manipulated it to fit his own agenda.

I agree, that in the end, there was not a connection between Saddam and the 9-11 attacks. I am fully aware that the intelligence community blew it big time, when they said there were still WMD in Iraq. Still, I think going into Iraq was justified. This is a war on terror, and Saddam openly supported terrorists. For example, he was known to offer rewards to families of suicide bombers. Terrorist traning camps were also known to exist. While perhaps not related to Al-Qaeda, terrorists are terrorist, and Saddam was not exactly a big fan of the US. Also, I find it absurd that the UN refused to go in, after Iraq had broken their agreements so many times over the years. Clearly, for many years, Saddam was hiding something.

Aside from that, it will take time, but I fully believe that it was worth. Saddam was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people. There is obviously a lot of turmoil there now, but in the end, I am confident Iraq will be a better place for the people. The Iraqi people overwhelming showed their support, as they had around 75% turnout for their recent elections, an astounding percentage.

As for the search for Osama, the US still has troops in Afgahnistan. They are simply forgotten, because the media insists on concentrating on Iraq, because it makes for better headlines. All I hear about are the negatives in Iraq. You never hear about how well things are going in Afgahnistan. No, they haven't found Osama, but they have set up a stable government and the rebuilding process is going well. I will never understand why the media always concentrates on the negatives, no matter what the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the search for Osama, the US still has troops in Afgahnistan. They are simply forgotten, because the media insists on concentrating on Iraq, because it makes for better headlines. All I hear about are the negatives in Iraq. You never hear about how well things are going in Afgahnistan. No, they haven't found Osama, but they have set up a stable government and the rebuilding process is going well. I will never understand why the media always concentrates on the negatives, no matter what the situation.

You answered your own question before the question. :D

Going into Iraq was a coup d'etat. They needed a reason to go in, they took what they had, and they did it.

Yes, Saddam was a bad person, and yes, the world is better with him behind bars.

But it was a bullshit excuse to go in, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it was a bullshit excuse to go in, plain and simple.

It was an excuse that the government, thought was a good excuse based on the data they had. I said it in my previous post, but I'll say it again - Saddam used WMD on his own people - the Kurds - that in and of itself is a reason to go in there and get him out. Perhaps the crime is that it took so long to go in there and get the job done! I don't understand why we continually protect the proven guilty and risk greater suffering to the innocent. I believe in innocent until proven guilty - but in no-way was Saddam innocent. I don't believe there is a perfect President or Prime Minister or King or Ruler, etc. - but I'm wayyyyy more comfortable with President Bush as my leader than President Hussein! God help us all if we ever have a leader that ever has plans to eradicate the world of a people group as Hussein attempted to the Kurds or wished for the Americans.

I don't believe you are saying that you think Hussein is a worthy leader - but what I do hear you saying is that you place a higher value on beauraucracy and process than justice. I believe that process has its place, but that it follows justice and that sometimes near-sighted process sometimes needs to be set aside for justice (example - I want the police to assume the guy taking a hammer to my car is a criminal, the guy carrying my kid away kicking and screaming to be a kid-napper ... I'd hope they wouldn't treat these guys cordially and serve them with papers to appear in court in a month or two ... arrest the guy!!!). I believe Hussein (like bin Laden) is fine with civilians being killed for his greater good - I am convinced that Bush is heart-broken over the thought that civilians have been killed. Hussein attacks the weak (civilians) - Bush attacks the strong (military).

I believe that 50 years from now, we will say that President Bush may have broken with proper short-term process, but that in the end justice was served.

Edited by revvvrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was an excuse that the government, thought was a good excuse based on the data they had. I said it in my previous post, but I'll say it again - Saddam used WMD on his own people - the Kurds - that in and of itself is a reason to go in there and get him out. Perhaps the crime is that it took so long to go in there and get the job done!

The leap that I have trouble with concerns whether the decision had anything to do with data. I believe the decision was made, and then the Bush administration looked for whatever they had to justify it. In the post-9/11 world, it wasn't hard to justify to an American public looking for a response to the attacks. Let's face it - since Gulf War I, Saddam wasn't doing much, other than within his own country...

The second concept in your post justifies the invasion because Saddam was bad for his own people. No argument there. Were his poison gases a real threat to the U.S.? No. Did the decision to invade have anything to do with a desire to protect Iraqis victimized by Saddam? :lool: Uh, no. This is an attempt to justify the war after the fact: "whoops, we didn't find any WMD... but, let's see, the Iraq people are much better off!"

Where is the U.S. in all the other parts of the world where bad things happen? Well, they're in some places, but not others. They choose based on their interests, obviously. Their interests include oil. Iraq also served Bush's political interests at the time: yes, the Taliban were overthrown, but we must do something else to distract people from the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large. Saddam is a convenient enemy. We'll make him abide by the UN resolutions, and invade when he refuses. What? He's letting inspectors back in? That doesn't fit with the plan - we'll invade anyway!

By the way, I am not anti-American. Far from it. And I don't believe that ridiculing Bush serves a purpose. But I can't help being cynical toward the Bush administration, because IMO he's playing politics in a way that is costing thousands of lives. I hope you're right that it will all be worth it in the long term, in terms of increased security for Iraqis. I think there's an equally good chance that the U.S. will pull out hastily, which could lead to civil war, and possibly someone who is similar to Saddam comes to power, except with a slightly more pronounced hatred for the U.S. due to the occupation.

But I'll try to think happy thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The leap that I have trouble with concerns whether the decision had anything to do with data. I believe the decision was made, and then the Bush administration looked for whatever they had to justify it. In the post-9/11 world, it wasn't hard to justify to an American public looking for a response to the attacks. Let's face it - since Gulf War I, Saddam wasn't doing much, other than within his own country...

By the way, I am not anti-American. Far from it. And I don't believe that ridiculing Bush serves a purpose. But I can't help being cynical toward the Bush administration, because IMO he's playing politics in a way that is costing thousands of lives. I hope you're right that it will all be worth it in the long term, in terms of increased security for Iraqis. I think there's an equally good chance that the U.S. will pull out hastily, which could lead to civil war, and possibly someone who is similar to Saddam comes to power, except with a slightly more pronounced hatred for the U.S. due to the occupation.

I still believe that the UN screwed up royally by not going into Iraq at the urging of the US. Iraq clearly broke its agreement with the UN numerous times since the Gulf War, but nothing was ever done. How many times did Saddam refuse to let UN inspectors in? Even when they were let in on occasion, they were not given full access to everything. What was he trying to hide? I honestly think anti-Bush government sentiment influenced the UN's Iraq vote.

The US pullout of Iraq is a hot button issue with me. I agree that we should not pull out too soon, which based on what the administration says, is something we will not need to worry about. Those who oppose Bush consistently call for him to pull out the troops. They do this under the guise of "getting our boys home." This may be one aspect of their call for a pullout, but I believe their main goal is to get Bush to leave prematurely, so Iraq will struggle, and the Bush administration will be blasted for leaving too early.

Also, I'd like to thank simonus, Trizzak, revvrob, and Mount Royale for keeping this discussion grounded and respectful. Too often political arguments lead to name calling and harrasment. I appreciate your ability to focus on the issues in a civil manner. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fanpuck, I don't think it's fair to attribute such a nefarious motive to those calling for a pullout from Iraq. Frankly, I do not know enough about military strategy or middle east politics to say whether an immediate pullout would be effective. However, when I listen to Murtha he seems to make some sense.

At the time of the invasion, the IAEA felt they were getting proper access, or close to it. They felt that Sadam Hussein was a manageable threat and that did not have nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons. The stores that were unnacounted for had gone 'stale' and would be innefective even if they were not disposed of.

Of course I am against Hussein and prefer him not to be around. I do not know if the war was worth it. Perhaps our military might would have been more effective as a threat against North Korea or Iran, or to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Voting in the election is not proof that Iraqis are pro-US. If I were an anti-US Iraqi I would go and try to vote in a religious anti-west party... which might be exactly what has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fanpuck, I don't think it's fair to attribute such a nefarious motive to those calling for a pullout from Iraq.

Voting in the election is not proof that Iraqis are pro-US. If I were an anti-US Iraqi I would go and try to vote in a religious anti-west party... which might be exactly what has happened.

Perhaps my view is influence by my thoughts on the current US political system. I realize that in a two party system, each side will have its own ideas and that there will be disagreements. On the other hand, lately it seems like the two sides will do anything to make the other side look bad. The Republicans did it to Clinton, and the Democrats are doing it to Bush. I see no civility in politics. It seems like the country is divided right down the middle, and that there is almost no middle ground anymore.

I'm not quite sure where the second point comes from. I don't recall saying that Iraqis are pro-US because of the election turnout. What I said was that it shows that the spirit of the Iraqi people is stronger than ever. 75% of the Iraqi people voted, despite the fact that the terrorists could very well try to blow them up on their way to vote. I see the voter turnout as a sign of the US and Iraqi forces winning the war on terror in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if I misinterpreted. but what kind of victory is it for Iraq to elect a fundamentalist anti-western government?

what kind of victory is it if the sunnis opt out of a majority shiite fundamentalist government? If the Kurds opt out? If Iran tries to repatriate the Kurds? If the Shiites abuse their majority to hurt the Sunnis?

Of course democracy is far preferable to dictatorship. Democracy gives a society a chance to change. Not every democratic country is good. And it is not unheard of for a nacent democracy to crumble in the first few decades. It seems quite possible that Iraq is heading to single party rule (which is theoretically what it has been under for a long time). Now, it is likely that we will be somewhat more friendly with this government. But remember, its not like the people coming in seem to have any problem with subsidizing suicide bombers, and they will want to be very strongly armed to defend themselves against the always imminent threat posed by Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heh. Politics. :puke:

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...