State Of The Union 2006: What Grade Do You Give President Bush?

...and he invaded a sovereign nation for their oil, to name a few...

He was impeached by the House, not the Senate.

I am just wondering why the Senate did not see the same thing as the House. Both were Republican controlled.

You spend all this money to prove this guy is a liar and then let him serve out his term after being impeached by the House?

Does that not piss you off in the least bit?

Sounds to me like you meant that Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. :confused: Perhaps I am confused.

And why would he do that if, like you said, there is oil in Iraq that we can't get out?

It's called compassion. And to prove a point. No he got what he deserved, a make on what he thought was an invinceable term. Many will hold it against Hillary as well, what kind of women would stay with a man like that. Say volumes about her charactor.

The burden of proof falls on Bush ,as this invasion was based on information he claimed existed that Saddam had WMDs.

But Bush was given false or perhaps just incorrect information.

What do you want the man to do? Investigate every single piece of info that comes across his desk personally? He can only take so much responsibility when he is given information from (formerly?) trusted sources that have been very useful in the past.

Thanks for clarifying your intent tumbleweed, i see what you meant now.

Your not confused, that's what I said. That was my theory of why we invaded Iraq, because we didn't find WMDs. None, We were told Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he had mobile chemical labs. Didn't Bush say there was overwhelming evidence of these WMDs? Isn't that the premise the he used for going there? Didn't Bush say that if Saddam had such weapons that he would either use them as a threat to his neighbors, or even sell them to terrorists who could use them against us?

Until someone can prove that there were WMDs in Iraq, I'm not convinced they were there at all. There are a lot of theories as to where they went, but no proof. One theory is the WMD went to Syria. Again, nobody has given any proof as to where they are. The burden of proof falls on Bush ,as this invasion was based on information he claimed existed that Saddam had WMDs.

Bush underestimated the enemy. He didn't take into consideration that insurgents could blow up oil pumping stations or oil pipelines as fast as we could get them operating again. Iraq isn't pumping oil at pre-war levels yet.l
I didn't say or mean to imply that we were stealing oil. I said the the reason
we invaded Iraq was because they are an oil rich nation.

The threat of Iraq and Iran doesn't come in the form of a military threat, it comes from their ability to disrupt the flow of oil out of that reagion, the ME.
Iraq was selling oil for Euros, we invaded Iraq, they start selling oil for dollars again. Why? Why not continue to selling oil for Euros after we arrived? It's because we, the US, stopped it.Why did we stop it? It is more profitable to sell oil in Euros than Dollars because of the difference in currency value.

The major currency for buying oil is still in US dollars. I believe the US will do everything in it's power to keep it that way. I feel our invasion of Iraq was more to do with oil than WMDs or human rights. I presented a theory as to what I felt was a reason for our invasion. I could be wrong. It's a theory, nothing more. I can't present evidence to prove my theory is 100% correct.

A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. That is what I presented, a theory. It is possible to prove it wrong. Up to this point, all there is are theories of why we invaded Iraq. If anyone has a different theory that makes sense, I'm open to suggestion.

That was my theory of why we invaded Iraq

because we didn't find WMDs. None,

We were told Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he had mobile chemical labs. Didn't Bush say there was overwhelming evidence of these WMDs? Isn't that the premise the he used for going there? Didn't Bush say that if Saddam had such weapons that he would either use them as a threat to his neighbors, or even sell them to terrorists who could use them against us?

Bushs lies are a proven fact, not punishable (yet) by law. We have 2 more years of Bush. His lies are across a broader scope of issues.

The major currency for buying oil is still in US dollars. I believe the US will do everything in it's power to keep it that way. I feel our invasion of Iraq was more to do with oil than WMDs or human rights. I presented a theory as to what I felt was a reason for our invasion. I could be wrong. It's a theory, nothing more. I can't present evidence to prove my theory is 100% correct.

A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. That is what I presented, a theory. It is possible to prove it wrong. Up to this point, all there is are theories of why we invaded Iraq. If anyone has a different theory that makes sense, I'm open to suggestion.

He still left office with one of the highest approval ratings in history.

Sorry but when it comes to millions of dollars to investigate someone for purjury there is no compassion. That is complete bullshit.

He still left office with one of the highest approval ratings in history.

Sorry but when it comes to millions of dollars to investigate someone for purjury there is no compassion.

Well this is the first time that I can recall the United States attacking a country for regime change that did not attack it first or attack its allies. We based this on Iraq being a threat to us because they had WOMD. Not to free the Iraqis. If we wanted to free people we should have started else where instead of pissing of the whole middle east and running our defecit and spending through the roof.

That is a pretty big deal to attack someone without a reason other than a possible threat. Before I did this I would want to know where the WOMD are and if there was a chance in hell they could be sold to Syria I would want some kind of backing for it so when we find nothing we can say "Hey, we got evidence showing they may be in Syria."

Instead we see now that Iraq really did not pose that big of a threat to America and by attacking Iraq we have now opened a new possibility for more military action on other countries that realize that our President is not very popular right now and they realize that American people and the world will not tolerate 3 wars in 8 years.

If we attack Iran in anyway they will attack Israel. Palestine will aide Iran on the ground and Iran will attack through the air.

I don't know about you but I was fortunate enough to not live during WWI WWII... I dont particularly like the thought of seeing WWIII

Why is it a theory now, it was fact earlier?

http://www.conflictingviews.com/forum/144-those-think-bush-lied.html
I checked the links and they don't work but you can search if you like.

The Russians and Italians the Brits the French, pretty much any country with an inteligence service was saying the same thing. Were they lieing? WMD's were ONE of the premises used. Don't forget there were 18 UN resolutions as well. Those all get a pass from you? Saddam did use them on his neighbors.


I believe, I feel, I presented a theory. Boy your story changed? What happened to the facts?

The only " Fact" I stated was that Bush lies. Other than that, where in my posts have I changed my position. I'v had to translate everything I posted. If you want me to post every lie Bush has told, forget it.There are whole sites devoted to addressing Bush lies.

I said he lied about WMDs. Misleading statements are a lie IMO. A donkey cart with a tarp on top of it isn't a chemical or biological mobile lab. There was no connection ever made tieing Saddam to trying to get WMD material from Africa. There are 2 misleading statements.

The Russians, Italians, Brits, or the French don't authorize my country to invade a sovereign nation, Bush does. He declared war on hearsay evidence.

Saddam used WMD on Iran and the Kurds. In the case of Iran it was used as a weapon. Isn't that what they were designed for?
In the case of the Kurds, he used WMDs to punish them. They were rebelling
against him, he gassed them. That how some dictators keep their population under control. Why didn't anybody do anything about that at the time? Because neither incident posed a threat to us. The only time he threatened to use any weapon at his disposal is when it was evident we we coming in for an invasion.

I don't believe my story has changed.

The only " Fact" I stated was that Bush lies. Other than that, where in my posts have I changed my position. I'v had to translate everything I posted. If you want me to post every lie Bush has told, forget it.There are whole sites devoted to addressing Bush lies.

I said he lied about WMDs. Misleading statements are a lie IMO. A donkey cart with a tarp on top of it isn't a chemical or biological mobile lab. There was no connection ever made tieing Saddam to trying to get WMD material from Africa. There are 2 misleading statements.

The Russians, Italians, Brits, or the French don't authorize my country to invade a sovereign nation, Bush does. He declared war on hearsay evidence.

Saddam used WMD on Iran and the Kurds. In the case of Iran it was used as a weapon. Isn't that what they were designed for?

In the case of the Kurds, he used WMDs to punish them. They were rebelling
against him, he gassed them. That how some dictators keep their population under control.

Why didn't anybody do anything about that at the time?

The only time he threatened to use any weapon at his disposal is when it was evident we we coming in for an invasion.

I don't believe my story has changed.

There is no "other then that" that is the whole point! Why if he is such a liar have you not proved one incident? Why do you need to translate? I'm not asking as i said before for every one, but one or two would be nice? There may be whole sites that address them but do any have proof? You made the statement not I. I am asking you to justify your statement, if you cannot, admit it. Don't beat around the bush (pun intended)

Missleading info doesnot constitute a lie. Your opinion on the matter does not make it fact. No connection with saddam to Niger? Wilson, husband of the real expert that should of been in Niger, admitted to Iraqi officals being in Niger as was stated. Niger only exports three things. Sheep, cows, and yellow cake, which do you think they were buying? Why did Wilson not have to sign a non disclosure with the CIA? Why did Wilson say Cheney sent him only to recant under oath in front of Congress? Why was Wilson allowed by the CIA to publish a news column in the NYT's? Seems alot of missleading is going on but not on bushes part?

What about the UN and Congress? Because you say we didn't find any does not mean it wasn't there. The President does not declare war, guess who does? Another fact that is wrong!


Sure were, we may just use such a weapon on them. there trying to get one, we have many.

LOL, yup and what happens to those kind of dictators? The US gets them. On pricipal if nothing else. First country to fight a war for it. We never declared war on Germany yet we kicked there ass.
I suppose you fall under "anybody" as well. But today he is standing on trial for his crimes. And what country brought this to be?


So he was threatened by Iran and Kuwait and Isreal? The ice is getting thin?

Your probably the only one.

I haven't found much to criticize him for , except perhaps that little is being done about immigration issues , especially illegal immigration on our southern border .
I think he is the right man for the job at the time , and don't see anyone else that could , or would do a better job .