PDA

View Full Version : President Clueless 'fesses up: No WMD in Iraq, no connection to 9/11


Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 04:40 AM
"In his news conference, the Decider did make a couple of nods to objective reality. He admitted in plain language that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and possessed no weapons of mass destruction -- in other words, that his rationale for this elective, preemptive war had no substance. "
President on Another Planet
By Eugene Robinson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eugene+robinson/)
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A15

For a moment there, I was almost encouraged. George W. Bush, the most resolutely incurious and inflexible of presidents, was reported last week to have been surprised at seeing Iraqi citizens -- who ought to be grateful beneficiaries of the American occupation, I mean "liberation" -- demonstrating in support of Hezbollah and against Israel.

Surprise would be a start, since it would mean the Decider was admitting novel facts to his settled base of knowledge and reacting to them. Alas, it seems the door to the presidential mind is still locked tight. "I don't remember being surprised," he said at his news conference yesterday. "I'm not sure what they mean by that."


I'm guessing "they" might mean that when you try to impose your simplistic, black-and-white template on a kaleidoscopic world, and you end up setting the Middle East on fire, either you're surprised or you're not paying attention. But that's just me.

As for George Bush, what on earth is on his mind?

Even conservatives have begun openly assessing the president's intellect, especially its impermeability to new information. Cable television pundit Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, devoted a segment of his MSNBC show to "George Bush's mental weakness," with a legend at the bottom of the screen that impertinently asked: "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

It's tempting to go there, but I'm not sure we'd get very far. While we have the president on the couch, I'm more interested in trying to understand his emotional response -- or lack of response -- to the chaos he has spawned.

According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed "unity" government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn't. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn't going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything's just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he's had his workout and a nice bike ride?

"I hear a lot of talk about civil war" in Iraq, he allowed -- much of it apparently from his own generals, who have been increasingly bold in using the once-forbidden phrase -- but all that talk doesn't seem to penetrate very far. To the president, is all the bad news from Iraq just "talk" without objective reality?

Here's another line from the president's news conference: "What's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy."

Now, whatever you think about George Bush's intellect, he knows full well that the Hamas government in Gaza was democratically elected. He also knows full well that Hezbollah participates in the democratically elected government of Lebanon, or what's left of Lebanon. And so he has to know full well that U.S.-backed Israeli assaults on Gaza and Lebanon -- even if you believe they were justified -- had the impact of crippling, if not crushing, two nascent democracies of the kind the Bush administration wants to cultivate throughout the Middle East.

He also knows that the Iraqi government has real sovereignty over only the Green Zone in Baghdad -- a fortress made secure by the presence of U.S. troops -- and assorted other enclaves where American and British troops enforce the peace. He has heard the leader of that nominal government praise Hezbollah and denounce Israel.

So when the president lauds democracy as the magic elixir that will cure the scourge of terrorism, is he really putting faith in his favorite mantra rather than his lying eyes? Is his view of the world so unchangeable that he dismisses actual events the way he dismisses mere "talk''?

Or is he just trying to hold on until January 2009, when all this will become somebody else's problem?

In his news conference, the Decider did make a couple of nods to objective reality. He admitted in plain language that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and possessed no weapons of mass destruction -- in other words, that his rationale for this elective, preemptive war had no substance. And he acknowledged a certain occasional exasperation.

"Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised," the president said. "Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times."

No, they're not.

Cat's Pajamas
Aug 22nd, 2006, 05:39 AM
I think Iraq shipped their weapons to Syria while they were holding off the UN inspectors :scratch:

Sam L
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:07 AM
You sound bitter Volcana. :scratch: No amount of whining from liberal bleeding hearts like you will change the fact that he was re-elected and that he won't be the worst president ever. Considering the circumstances around 9/11 I think he's done a good job.

You don't deserve to live in America. Why don't you move to Iraq? :p

RVD
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:29 AM
You sound bitter Volcana. :scratch: No amount of whining from liberal bleeding hearts like you will change the fact that he was re-elected and that he won't be the worst president ever. Considering the circumstances around 9/11 I think he's done a good job.

You don't deserve to live in America. Why don't you move to Iraq? :pYou must be sniffing glue, dropping acid, and smoking that big Fattie Tie-Stick if you seriously believe that. :lol:

Topic-wise...
Why are you so offended by what Volcana posted. :shrug:
The article further confirms what most logic-minded people already knew. That the bum lied.
And if now the President himself is admiting it, then it's news. :angel:

IceSkaTennisFan
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:31 AM
Thread title President Clueless 'fesses up: No WMD in Iraq, no connection to 9/11

He's so behind in the news, it's funny and sad at the same time.

Sam L
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:13 AM
You must be sniffing glue, dropping acid, and smoking that big Fattie Tie-Stick if you seriously believe that. :lol:

Topic-wise...
Why are you so offended by what Volcana posted. :shrug:
The article further confirms what most logic-minded people already knew. That the bum lied.
And if now the President himself is admiting it, then it's news. :angel:

Volcana has been pulling this shit - the conservatives are bad, liberals are good routine - for the last 5 years. I'm just sick of it. ;)

gentenaire
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:36 AM
ah Sam, changing the topic again so that you wouldn't have to respond to an article that makes some really good points.

Philbo
Aug 22nd, 2006, 09:48 AM
Volcana has been pulling this shit - the conservatives are bad, liberals are good routine - for the last 5 years. I'm just sick of it. ;)

You're pathetic Sam. YOu cant argue the substance of the article so you just attack the poster.

No amount of spin by convervative neocons like yourself will make the iraq war good policy. Im sick of the routine of 'republicans will protect you, liberals will help the enemy routine'. If you dont like it, stay out of the thread you fool.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 10:14 AM
I actually agree with SamL by and large. Volcana posts lots of interesting stuff and is obviously very intelligent, has excellent reasoning skills and has the benefit of having a father who was a talented professor. But volcana comes off as way to angry. he bites the hand that feeds him, identifies with terrorists and calls American leaders worse than terrorists. Despite his intelligence, whit and frequent good humour, he's better off in Irak or an Afghanistan around people who think, feel and perhaps even "take action" like himself. It is not intended to be offensive, he is just way off the American mainstream and seems to be looking to inspire other people to become terrorists. Do we let people graduate highschool that espouse these kind of beliefs? if so why?

Philbo
Aug 22nd, 2006, 10:50 AM
I actually agree with SamL by and large. Volcana posts lots of interesting stuff and is obviously very intelligent, has excellent reasoning skills and has the benefit of having a father who was a talented professor. But volcana comes off as way to angry. he bites the hand that feeds him, identifies with terrorists and calls American leaders worse than terrorists. Despite his intelligence, whit and frequent good humour, he's better off in Irak or an Afghanistan around people who think, feel and perhaps even "take action" like himself. It is not intended to be offensive, he is just way off the American mainstream and seems to be looking to inspire other people to become terrorists. Do we let people graduate highschool that espouse these kind of beliefs? if so why?

The American mainstream cheered Bush on during his march to this unjust, illegal, totally bullshit war. America needs more people to go against the mainstream. The PROBLEM is mainstream america.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:07 AM
The American mainstream cheered Bush on during his march to this unjust, illegal, totally bullshit war. America needs more people to go against the mainstream. The PROBLEM is mainstream america.

Extremes of anti-American attitudes are dangerous to the world as we know it. The American public was justifiably angered by 9/11, we believed that as Iran did (bombed by Israel because of) in previous decades Irak was had weapons of mass destruction. It is undeniable that the parts of the Arab world would eradicate Israel and any presence of western world in Arabia. Point is America is not chearing Bush on any more in this war. Americans didnt know a lot of stuff, just made decisions based on the information that THEY HAD. Volcana's posts just reek of anger and are just too angry and intending to hurt to be of any real use. :lick:

Halardfan
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:15 AM
You don't have to be liberal to see Bush's huge faults and mistakes...they positively scream in your face.

His legacy to the next president will be a truly awful one...Post 9/11 there was an opportunity at reconciliation with Iran, instead Bush put them squarely in the Axis of evil, and pushed them into to the arms of their current extremist leader.

We were told the war on Iraq would initmidate its neighbours into reform and negotatiation, this has failed.

We were told it would remove the threat from Irael and therefore allow America finally to put pressure on Israel over the Palestine issue. Bush lied.

We were told Iraq was practically stuffed with WMD's..it wasn't.

We were told the violence in Iraq would be short term, and would settle down after this leader or that was caught or killed...its worse than ever.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:17 AM
You don't have to be liberal to see Bush's huge faults and mistakes...they positively scream in your face.

His legacy to the next president will be a truly awful one...Post 9/11 there was an opportunity at reconciliation with Iran, instead Bush put them squarely in the Axis of evil, and pushed them into to the arms of their current extremist leader.

We were told the war on Iraq would initmidate its neighbours into reform and negotatiation, this has failed.

We were told it would remove the threat from ISrael and therefore allow America finally to put pressure on Israel over the Palestine issue. Bush lied.

We were told Iraq was practically stuffed with WMD's..it wasn't.

We were told the violence in Iraq would be short term, and would settle down after this leader or that was caught or killed...its worse than ever.

nice spelling

Sam L
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:45 AM
I actually agree with SamL by and large. Volcana posts lots of interesting stuff and is obviously very intelligent, has excellent reasoning skills and has the benefit of having a father who was a talented professor. But volcana comes off as way to angry. he bites the hand that feeds him, identifies with terrorists and calls American leaders worse than terrorists. Despite his intelligence, whit and frequent good humour, he's better off in Irak or an Afghanistan around people who think, feel and perhaps even "take action" like himself. It is not intended to be offensive, he is just way off the American mainstream and seems to be looking to inspire other people to become terrorists. Do we let people graduate highschool that espouse these kind of beliefs? if so why?

Thank you. I'm not going to respond to anyone in this thread but suffice to say that Sluggy has spoken my thoughts exactly here. And what worries me the most is that there are people like Volcana in America who willingly or unwillingly encouraging terrorism. I think it's disgusting. And nice use of the phrase "bites the hand that feeds him". What has Iraq and Hezbollah done for you Volcana? :rolleyes:

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:53 AM
yes, it is way too much. I have no problem with people that against our country. but why not exit the public school system by say ... 14 years of age, come out directly and tell people who you are and what you believe. Publish literature, etc, but remind people you dont ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE THE USA BE OVERTHROWN or in a civil war or etc. But I think it is overtly clear you do wish that, and probably it can be inferred that you have not separated yourself from our institutions - probably eat doritos like the rest of us. hehe

gentenaire
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:03 PM
But volcana comes off as way toO angry.

Nice spelling

gentenaire
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:05 PM
people like Volcana in America who willingly or unwillingly encouraging terrorism.

Would you care to elaborate on that? As far as I know, the Iraq war has fuelled terrorism an awful lot more.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:29 PM
Nice spelling

and? is too a country. It offends who?

fifiricci
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:50 PM
You don't have to be liberal to see Bush's huge faults and mistakes...they positively scream in your face.

.

I fear that many American conservatives/rednecks (not forgetting the conservative rednecks ;) ) just cannot grasp that concept.

They can only think in simple terms a la John Wayne and westerns:

White hat = goodie
Black hat/Indian = baddie

;)

spudrsca
Aug 22nd, 2006, 01:08 PM
yes, it is way too much. I have no problem with people that against our country. but why not exit the public school system by say ... 14 years of age, come out directly and tell people who you are and what you believe. Publish literature, etc, but remind people you dont ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE THE USA BE OVERTHROWN or in a civil war or etc. But I think it is overtly clear you do wish that, and probably it can be inferred that you have not separated yourself from our institutions - probably eat doritos like the rest of us. hehe

Wow, you sure love the logic of Bush. If you're not with us, you are against us.:help:

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 01:23 PM
Wow, you sure love the logic of Bush. If you're not with us, you are against us.:help:

Not exactly, not even close. volcana is an EXTREME critic of the United States, it is not even a close, and he identifies with and seems to support terrorism. He is extreme even to American liberals and probably European liberals too. :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Aug 22nd, 2006, 02:46 PM
The American mainstream cheered Bush on during his march to this unjust, illegal, totally bullshit war. America needs more people to go against the mainstream. The PROBLEM is mainstream america.
I am happy whenever a dictator who murders at least 200'000 of his citizens is deposed. Samething with Serbia where Mislosevic was removed from power. I am sure you supported U.S. fighting there. So don't give me this bs that the war was unjust. The inly reason you are whining is because it was started by a Republican. If Clinton had started the war you would cheer he along. Also both Clinton's and most dems supported the war.

griffin
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:15 PM
And what worries me the most is that there are people like Volcana in America who willingly or unwillingly encouraging terrorism.

What should offend you is that you'd stoop to this kind of pathetic smear.

You know what I think encourages terrorism? Diverting funding and resources from the actual source of the terrorism that did hit us. Diverting funding and resources from the kind of intelligence work that actually catches people. Invading other countries, and botching the invasion and the occupation and basically turning the place into a breeding ground for new terrorists (most of the people who've filtered into Iraq to either fight the US or fight for whatever sect have been "new recruits" who were radicalized by the war). Destabilizing an entire region.

But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to ignore that, and lay blame on the media and or some guy posting on a message board, go ahead.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:16 PM
calls American leaders worse than terrorists.Now exactly when did I do that?
way off the American mainstreamI think I'm actually pretty close to the mainstream.
Do we let people graduate highschool that espouse these kind of beliefs? if so why?Generally, people who espouse ANY kind of beliefs, and can back up their points with facts and logic, have long since graduated high school. So I suppose we 'let' them graduate because we don't know what they'll be like as adults.

Or....

because as a society, we believe in the free exchange of ideas.

we believed that as Iran did (bombed by Israel because of) in previous decades Irak was had weapons of mass destruction.No Sluggy, we DIDN'T believe that. During the very nine months leading up to the Iraq invasion, David Kaye was leading weapons inspectors in Iraq, and their report stated quite clearly that Iraq had no prohibited weapons. BEFORE the invasion. BEFORE.

The Bush administration knew Iraq was no threat to the USA. They wanted the US military in the Middle East to execute the plans of the Project for a New American Century, to re-make the Middle East as a USA dominated arena. Go to their website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm) and read up on it. This plan has been in place since 1997, at least.

The invasion of Iraq wasn't a reaction to 9/11. It was an exploitation of 9/11 for political ends long sought.

Volcana's posts just reeek of anger and are just too angry and intending to hurt to be of any real use.
a) Why is anger bad?

b) My posts generate a lot of response and discussion. So I'd argue they are of 'real use' by definition. :)

SelesFan70
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:21 PM
In his news conference, the Decider did make a couple of nods to objective reality. He admitted in plain language that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and possessed no weapons of mass destruction -- in other words, that his rationale for this elective, preemptive war had no substance. And he acknowledged a certain occasional exasperation.

Sounds like wishful thinking on the reporter's part. :lol: There hasn't been any other mention of this astounding "revelation" in the news media. :rolleyes:
because it's simply not true.

Volcana and others are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. :help:

Halardfan
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:22 PM
nice spelling

pe·dan·tic
adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.



See also:

Knob.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:24 PM
Now exactly when did I do that?

You have compared Bush to Hitler, you call Bush a terrorist.

I think I'm actually pretty close to the mainstream.

Actually I will rephrase that. You share many points in common with mainstream thought that is critical to the country. You share many points in common with hardcore liberals. You just take it to a much further degree.

Generally, people who espouse ANY kind of beliefs, and can back up their points with facts and logic, have long since graduated high school.

You are far too intelligent, IMO to depart so far from meanstream American thought. And you identify with people that are really quite evil terrorists. Your intelligence is not in question. You'd make a great a great speach writer for Islamic terror training camps. I respect those people, i just think they'd be better off with more people like them? Or do you know lots of similarly minded people in the United States?


Generally, people who espouse ANY kind of beliefs, and can back up their points with facts and logic, have long since graduated high school.

Oh, and practically any subject and any opinion can be debated intelligently.

griffin
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:35 PM
Sounds like wishful thinking on the reporter's part. :lol: There hasn't been any other mention of this astounding "revelation" in the news media. :rolleyes:
because it's simply not true.

Volcana and others are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. :help:

Derangement? Me, I looked at it as giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Because imo REFUSING to acknowledge the lack of WMD and the lack of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq makes him look worse.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:36 PM
You have compared Bush to Hitler, you call Bush a terrorist.
Actually, I've compared Bush's tactics, both in the use of dis-information, and the Blitzkreig ('Shock and Awe') to Hitler. And I stand by those comparisons.

And I certainly have called Bush a terrorist. I stand by that too. Once you look at an abstract definition of terrorism, a lot of the actions of various American presidents clearly are terrorism, or at least supportive thereof. Training, finacing and supplying death squads in Chile, for example. Out financial and military support of thr Apartheid government in South Africa for another.

However, you said that I called Americas leaders WORSE than terrorists. I don't think I did that.

Oh, and practically any subject and any opinion can be debated intelligently.You asked why people who political veiws you don't like were allowed to graduate from high school. I was just trying to answer your question.

Kunal
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:39 PM
a credible sentence coming out of Bush!?!

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:45 PM
No Sluggy, we DIDN'T believe that. During the very nine months leading up to the Iraq invasion, David Kaye was leading weapons inspectors in Iraq, and their report stated quite clearly that Iraq had no prohibited weapons. BEFORE the invasion. BEFORE.)

volcana, it was a typo. I was referring to the Israeli bombing of Iran back in the 80s. Israel believed Iran was developping nuclear capabilities, and despite the int'l communities orders not to do so, Israel bombed them anyway. and if i might add, it appears (so ive been brainswashed) that Israel was right. I was likening it to the present day case of Irak. I believe Bush's people reasonably believed Irak possessed and would use Weapons of mass destruction.

samsung101
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:49 PM
Uh, when did George W. Bush say Iraq is directly linked to 9/11?
Never.
In fact, CBS and other networks, have repeatedly shown the
tape where Bush said, no, there is no direct link...he's been
asked that repeatedly, for years.
Did Iraq have terrorist ties, yes.
Did Saddam order 9/11, no.
No proof of that.
Who said it?

Cheney and others have stated repeatedly, and correctly,
that 1 of the 9/11 hijackers did have links to higher ups in
the Iraq govt., and there is proof of that - heck, even PBS
admits that.

What, you can't state that?

Ah-haha...we caught you...we caught you in a truth, but we'll
spin it as a lie.

WMD's, were there as many as Clinton's CIA Director Tenat said
there were? No. Were there as many as the UN said there were, no.
Were there as many as the Brits said there were, and Russians, etc.,
no. Were there zero? No. The Congress and Brits and UN (remember
the hysteria of how 'we' didn't secure the WMD sites good enough,
just a year after the war started....) Why be scared if there were
none? Duh.


Silly isn't it?

The clueless media, clueless masses who would prefer Lamont to
Lieberman, Iran to Bush, Syria to Bush, and Hamas and Hezbollah
to Bush, would rather spend minutes jumping up and down celebrating
every slight and guffaw and 'gotcha' question of the very slanted
White House press corps...than deal with reality.

As Iran (one of that non-existent axis of evil that silly Bush spoke of
years ago, to laughter) boards Romanian ships at gunpoint, kills
students who protests, and hangs girls who are raped, as it supplies
Hamas and Hezbollah and likely, Al Queda, with high tech weapons
the oil billions allow it to buy and distribute.

But, Bush smirked again. Make a video out of it.
Bush picked his nose, show it around the world.
Bush sniffled, he's on coke, print it.

Iran builds, North Korea builds, and the press would rather
talk about Bush, and how he shouldn't have relied on the CIA and
FBI and UN reports he had in front of him....but, we should now
rely on those same groups on the non-threat Iran is. OK. Got it.

Quick....see the funny video.
See, we gotcha.

"Sluggy"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 03:50 PM
You asked why people who political veiws you don't like were allowed to graduate from high school. I was just trying to answer your question.

WRONG. I was more saying, Why don't people SO opposed to the ideals of our country, to the decisions and ideals of our country, go to another country.

Let me ask it this way: If another nation, one closer to your believe system, were able to "revolutionize" our govt and policies, etc, would you be likely to guy into it and let them in?

"Topaz"
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:02 PM
volcana, it was a typo. I was referring to the Israeli bombing of Iran back in the 80s. Israel believed Iran was developping nuclear capabilities, and despite the int'l communities orders not to do so, Israel bombed them anyway. and if i might add, it appears (so ive been brainswashed) that Israel was right.For the record, Israel never bombed Iran. The raid you're referring to was actually carried out against the Osirak nuclear reactor of Iraq, in 1981. That Israeli raid was codenamed "Operation Opera". BTW, Iran had bombed that very same Iraqi reactor in 1980, but only lightly damaged it.

Now, folks, you've got to know America is more sophisticated than you think. People can see through news, statements and propaganda. Here is what the American public is saying according to the latest polls (source) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html) :
Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.
...
Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him (Bush) honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence.
Bush's stand on the issues is also problematic, with more than half (57 percent) of Americans saying they disagree with him on the issues they care about.
So, Volcana has more than 160 million other Americans sharing his views more or less. That's beyond freedom of speech, folks; this is freedom of thought. I would encourage some of you here not to be so insensitive towards the plights of the Iraqis. Their country has been destroyed, broken up and finally occupied; lawlessness is rampant to say the least, and all hope, practically gone. Nonetheless, deep down, I think Saddam and his legion should have been gone long time ago, way back in the 80's, thereby thwarting the series of events that ensued since. Ahhhh... history! If only we could rewrite it.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:33 PM
WRONG. I was more saying, Why don't people SO opposed to the ideals of our country, to the decisions and ideals of our country, go to another country.Are these not your words?
Do we let people graduate highschool that espouse these kind of beliefs? if so why?
but why not exit the public school system by say ... 14 years of age, come out directly and tell people who you are and what you believe.
a) I don't know many adults who have the same political views as they did when they were 14.

b) As a nation, the USA encourages a wide range of political views.

My view is that, Bush, and his philosophies, are bad for the USA.

Let me ask it this way: If another nation, one closer to your believe system, were able to "revolutionize" our govt and policies, etc, would you be likely to guy into it and let them in?Of course not. I have friends and relatives here who might die in the revolution.

You're missing where I'm coming from. I completely espouse the IDEALS of the United States. I opposed some of the actions of the United States.

Opposing the misguided and murderous policies of the Bush administration, especially by encourages discussion of them, is embracing the ideals of the United States. Respecting the sovereignity of other countries, respect for the religions of others, judging people as individuals rather than groups, starting wars only as a DEFENSIVE measure, these are all ideals of the UNited States. Since the Civil War, our leadership, before the current bunch of clowns, all at least paid lip service to these ideals. (Yes, we have a long history of what would now be called terrorism and offensive war in Central and South America, mostly in the service of corporations, but we didn't admit it while the operations were going on.)

RainyDays
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:51 PM
And I certainly have called Bush a terrorist. I stand by that too. Once you look at an abstract definition of terrorism, a lot of the actions of various American presidents clearly are terrorism, or at least supportive thereof. Training, finacing and supplying death squads in Chile, for example. Out financial and military support of thr Apartheid government in South Africa for another.

However, you said that I called Americas leaders WORSE than terrorists. I don't think I did that.



The same people in this thread have said that Volcana ENCOURAGES terrorism. I never saw how that was possible given that he does not think Bush is doing a fantastic job of getting rid of terrorists. Seems to me that Volcana wants terrorism gone, but does not agree with the way Bush went about it. This response by Volcana proves my point.
How can you people think that Volcana promotes terrorism? IMO, that's a pretty sick accusation to make.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 06:56 PM
the press would rather talk about Bush, and how he shouldn't have relied on the CIA and FBI and UN reports he had in front of him.... Bush DIDN'T rely on the CIA, FBI and UN reports in front of him. All those reports said Iraq was no threat. Instead, the Bush administration built their own intelligence aparatus to deliver reports that said what they already believed, and ignored the reports from the UN, the FBI and the CIA that didn't say what they wanted to hear.

All this 'intelligence failure' bullshit is just that. Clinton (who I didn't vote for either time) warned Bush about bin Laden. Bush chose to focus on Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no prohibited weapons. Not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. So they ignored it.

George Bernard Shaw, in Man and Superman, wrote the quintessential description of the Bush administration, and the more sycophantic of their followers.

"... are all the dullest dogs I know.
They are not beautiful: they are only decorated.
They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched.
They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed.
They are not educated they are only college passmen.
They are not religious: they are only pewrenters.
They are not moral: they are only conventional.
They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly.
They are not even vicious: they are only "frail."
They are not artistic: they are only lascivious.
They are not prosperous: they are only rich.
They are not loyal, they are only servile;
not dutiful, only sheepish;
not public spirited, only patriotic;
not courageous, only quarrelsome;
not determined, only obstinate;
not masterful, only domineering;
not self-controlled, only obtuse;
not self-respecting, only vain;
not kind, only sentimental;
not social, only gregarious;
not considerate, only polite;
not intelligent, only opinionated;
not progressive, only factious;
not imaginative, only superstitious;
not just, only vindictive;
not generous, only propitiatory;
not disciplined, only cowed;
and not truthful at all--
liars, every one of them, to the very backbone of their souls."

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:03 PM
How can you people think that Volcana promotes terrorism? IMO, that's a pretty sick accusation to make.A lot of people think it's only terrorism when people you oppose do it. If your side does it, then it's justified, and thus not actually terrorism. If you feel that way, a lot of what I write must seem like it at least tacitly promotes terrorism, simply because I'm not condemning everything the 'bad guys' do, and applauding everything the 'good guys' do.

And of course, there are those who think opposing the Bush administration encourages terrorism by definition.

Thanks for the support though.

meyerpl
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:18 PM
You don't have to be liberal to see Bush's huge faults and mistakes...they positively scream in your face.

His legacy to the next president will be a truly awful one...Post 9/11 there was an opportunity at reconciliation with Iran, instead Bush put them squarely in the Axis of evil, and pushed them into to the arms of their current extremist leader.

We were told the war on Iraq would initmidate its neighbours into reform and negotatiation, this has failed.

We were told it would remove the threat from Irael and therefore allow America finally to put pressure on Israel over the Palestine issue. Bush lied.

We were told Iraq was practically stuffed with WMD's..it wasn't.

We were told the violence in Iraq would be short term, and would settle down after this leader or that was caught or killed...its worse than ever.
....and this doesn't event take into account the harm this president has done on the domestic front. How can you call yourself conservative and approve of his irresponsible budget deficits? He keeps cutting taxes while saying it will increase revenue and balance the budget. How long is that supposed to take? Six years? Eight? Twelve?
Never in the history of civilization has a country cut taxes in a time of war. This president is either stupid or insane.

RVD
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:43 PM
For the record, Israel never bombed Iran. The raid you're referring to was actually carried out against the Osirak nuclear reactor of Iraq, in 1981. That Israeli raid was codenamed "Operation Opera". BTW, Iran had bombed that very same Iraqi reactor in 1980, but only lightly damaged it.

Now, folks, you've got to know America is more sophisticated than you think. People can see through news, statements and propaganda. Here is what the American public is saying according to the latest polls (source) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html) :

So, Volcana has more than 160 million other Americans sharing his views more or less. That's beyond freedom of speech, folks; this is freedom of thought. I would encourage some of you here not to be so insensitive towards the plights of the Iraqis. Their country has been destroyed, broken up and finally occupied; lawlessness is rampant to say the least, and all hope, practically gone. Nonetheless, deep down, I think Saddam and his legion should have been gone long time ago, way back in the 80's, thereby thwarting the series of events that ensued since. Ahhhh... history! If only we could rewrite it. :worship: I greatly admire your attempts to reach the pro-Bush crew here, but I'm sorry to say that it will only fall on deaf ears. These pro-Bush people are unfortunately unable to connect-the-dots that led up to the war. Ask any Bush supporter and they will all in general agree that Bush did what he did for the benefit of the country. But then if you ask them why does Bush consider the Constitution nothing more than ... "...just a goddamned piece of paper", they have absolutely no answer for you. Yes, indeed, your question will chase them away.
Case in point...

Hey Sluggy, Selesfan70, and any other Bush supporter out there, do you support a leader who considers the law of the land just a goddamn piece of paper?Bush in reference to U.S. Constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)

I await with quiet anticipation. :devil: :lol:

P.S.
Sluggy, in light of Bush's disdain for American 'rights', who do you fear more?
Someone with Volcana's sentiments, or someone with Bush's Presidential power? :hehehe:

RVD
Aug 22nd, 2006, 07:58 PM
Bush DIDN'T rely on the CIA, FBI and UN reports in front of him. All those reports said Iraq was no threat. Instead, the Bush administration built their own intelligence aparatus to deliver reports that said what they already believed, and ignored the reports from the UN, the FBI and the CIA that didn't say what they wanted to hear.Isn't it maddening how Bush supporters will swear on their mother's graves to the contrary? They want so badly to believe that a sitting President would never act in such a malicious and immoral way. Especially since he talks to God.
All this 'intelligence failure' bullshit is just that. Clinton (who I didn't vote for either time) warned Bush about bin Laden. Bush chose to focus on Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors said Iraq had no prohibited weapons. Not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. So they ignored it.The only proven intelligence failure lies with Bush himself. A fact that has been proven time and again. However, I've come to the realization that many will never believe something that would destroy their entire since of reality. It would mean that they were ‘wrong’ and sided with a murderer of a sovereign nation. :shrug: