Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

I think we let Bush get away with that crap because we have no other choice. The congress is controlled by republicans who have a political reason not to go after the president no matter what he does and the main media (24 hr cable) are mostly bush cheerleaders. They report the negative things in the Bush administration but then they turn around and rationalize it or justify it or say something like, "a democrat congressmen has this to say about it" which has the effect of making the objections to the Bush outfit seem only a partisan smear thing.

I find it interesting (but expected)that you only highlight the parts that make Bush look bad.
What about this part..."The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and Congress looked at the intelligence -- and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country," the president said"
THat is a true statement also.Bill Clinton DID say regime change was our policy,and the UN,including France and Germany,did say that Iraq had WMD.
So your claim,while true,is factually misleading.
If you are going to slam Bush,then you must admit that the whole world was fooled by Iraq about WMD.
Next point,WMD were not the only reason we went into Iraq,it was one of several.

I have to ask you this.The article quoted Bush as saying..."We had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Is he wrong with this statement?
Do you believe we should have done nothing?
What if we had done nothing,and then found out that they did have them,and they decided to use them?

Then we better get to war with a shitload of other countries, countries more of an imminent threat than Iraq...countries that admit outright they have more WMD's than Iraq ever thought of countries that hate us just as much as Iraq and when bushinc was pushing the war they shoved down our throats they did have wmd's not that they were capable of producing them and that they were sharing that technology and financing the production of them with others not that they could.

This administration changes the rhetoric to suit their sales purposes and then states it in a way as to make you look unpatriotic if you question it.

We went from a country widely disliked but at least respected by the world to a country with the currency of empathy and sympathyof a great deal of the world to a country actually despised and certainly not respected by practically any of the world on bushincs watch.

Many may fear us, and that may all right with a lot of people, but that is not the same as respect and has never in history failed to come back and bite you on the ass.

The President made his decisions based on the information which was given him. He was not the one who went out and obtained the information. We have people who are highly overpaid to do this Little job. The President acted upon what data was received..

He did not make all the decisions alone.. He does have a Congress and Senate to answer to.

Remember when one points a finger, three fingers are pointing back.

It is easy to criticize and complain when things don't go quite the way we want them to, but in the end, it always works out for the best.

Why? Because God is ALWAYS in control..

It was congress, NOT the president that sent us to war in Iraq. If I remember right, it was by an overwhelming margin for the war and only TWO members of congress did not vote for it, neither of those two where John Kerry.

What are the other countries that pose an emanate threat to the US? N. Korea maybe? If so, how do you think we could have gone about supporting a war against them, they have not invaded another country lately nor have they disobeyed any sanctions against them.

Or are you thinking Saudi Arabia? How do you suppose we start a war against an ally who is also the number one producer of oil in this world? Being that Iraq has the number two source of oil, how would you have compromise cutting off the world’s pipeline of oil supply to fight against Saudi?

And it follows that because GWB is a christian, anything he does is God's work, and therefore beyond reproach.

If congress knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 do you truly believe that they would have voted for a war?I dont. They were manipulated like the rest of us.

The Moonbats believe that President Bush is a traitor; HE LIED TO US!!!; he is a venal, corrupt, self-serving moron who is out for money and power.

If the logic of the invasion of Iraq proclaims to you who believe that President Bush is corrupt and invaded Iraq for the purpose of enriching himself and his friends by controlling Iraqi oil, then I have a simple question for you:

Why didn't Mr. Bush and his friends either simply steal the Iraqi oil as did France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. under the UN "oil for food" (corrupt bribes) program where billions of dollars of contracts were assigned (read Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud
Or, simply lift the trade embargo, make Saddam into a new groveling ally (Iran is still our enemy), get real sweet deals on oil; on rebuilding Iraq; please the Saudis who are supposed to be Bush's corrupt partners in this fantasy scenario; and thereby enrich and empower all of Bush's "oil buddies?"

I would love to see a logical and factual answer to those questions.
Until then, your Bush oil fantasy is merely some twisted mental maunderings that serve to show ignorance and hatred on the part of those that believe such things.

With the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, the United States has removed two Fascist regimes that were directly hostile to the United States.

In doing so, Iran, another hostile state, is now surrounded by nations that do not share its views of hegemony by terrorism; that do not share its views of Islam - Wilayat Al-Faqih, Rule by the Jurist, a new Shia cult invented by Khomeini in 1964 while he lived in Najaf, which is in Iraq; and who do not share Iran's views of the desirability of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Syria (and its client state Lebanon) is now surrounded by nations that are inimicable to its interests.
Which is why Syria is sending its Sunni Muslims to murder Shia Muslims in Iraq and Iran is sending its Shia Muslims to murder Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
These are lovely people.
Other countries in the world such as France and Russia, opposed and still oppose these actions because they were having oily intercourse with Saddam. They resent their Oil For Fraud money being cut off.

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia now has to deal with the consequences of its own promotion of Islamic terror and fascism. Again, with Iraq on its border, it is also surrounded by nations (with the exception of Yemen) that find its Wahhabi national cult abbhorrent.
The Wahhabis murdered hundreds of thousandsof Shia Muslims in Northern Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq in the last century.
They destroyed (the current ruling family of Jordan) the Hashemites who controlled Mecca and Medina.
Saudi Arabia has been put "on notice" by its neighbors through the actions of the United States.
Are these imperfect solutions? Of course. What is a better solution?

Islamic Fascist Death Cultists wish to murder me; they wish to murder my family; they wish to murder my community; they wish to murder my nation; and they wish to murder all humanity that might stand against them.
They must be stopped.
President Bush is attempting to stop them in the most intelligent and useful manner possible.
Any better suggestions?

That entire post was beautiful and to the point with much honesty and with much to consider.

Thank Ya... Thank ya very much.

Moishe3rd
You are asking very good questions. However you are asking the wrong people. You should be asking Bush and his government drones these questions. We havent Quelled the terriosts in Afganistan or Iraq. We have removed Saddum and his government but by doing it the way we did we have encouraged terriosm. We gave Al Quada time to regroupe when we should have stayed in Afganistan untill we had completely destroyed the terriost organization. The president lied in order to get us into Iraq and people like you justify his lies by saying he freed the Iraquie people from a monster. If we are going to free the world of all the monsters we better enlarge our military by at least 500% because we will be fighting half the governments in the world.

rabel122, good post and I agree.

It is not only the Bush administration who do things in a nasty way but a certain kind of conservative wing of the republican party. I don't blame or think all of them are like that, but it is ones are who are in control right now. One such example is the following from the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43219-2004Jul11.html

You seem unhappy.
I think what would cheer you up is to read up on the history of the Middle East; the Arabs; Islam; the Soviet Union; and World War II.
All of these histories would give you a longer time perspective. You could attempt to understand the "big picture" of this particular war against Islamic Fascism.
In this larger context, things are going fairly well.

How did President Bush lie to us?
I don't believe I wrote anything about freeing the Iraqi people. Not that I don't heartily approve of doing that, it's just not why we are in Iraq.
I believe I wrote about the strategic importance of Iraq in this war and I implied that Iran presents a very serious danger. Which is why they are hell bent, literally, on trying to destroy any semblance of peace in Iraq.
Or do you think the Iranians are trying to conquer Iraq?
Or perhaps you think they love the "poor, defeated, Iraqis" so much that they are just trying to help them get rid of the "evil" United States?
Which monsters do you think we ought to fight?
Why?

Why is it a common belief that we "left" Afghanistan? That doesn't bode well for our "educated" public.

It's a common belief because it's true In many ways we have "left" Afghanistan.


From the Article:



That's simply not true and why isn't the media pointing this out over and over. I keep hearing the Bush loyalist whine about the "liberal" media but they fail to address the fact that the "liberal" media sure does let alot of things slide.

We are not safer today, the American public doesn't buy it, the experts say it's not true so why then does Bush keep perpetrating this lie? Which it is.



Wow talk about lying. "declared enemy"? When did Saddam declare war on the US? He had the capability? if he did then why does everything shown thus far show he didn't? He "could" have? We know Saudi Arabia and Pakistan DID pass it on yet we attack Iraq?



Sorry but the Bush administration knew a large chunk of their information was bad. Take the SOTU speech he gave, if he was getting this bad intel from the CIA? then why was he quoting British intelligence? Seems to me that he had an inkling that the intel wasn't very good. Plus there was enough information avaible to at least QUESTION the intel. I think anyone who is paying attention understands that the bad intel is exactly what the Bush administration wanted, listened to and acted upon. If there was intel showing the opposite they simply dismissed it. Not only that but they STILL work on the idea stemming forth from the "bad" intel, so again where is that "liberal" media when you need it?


.

Lie and Lie.

The UN had reservations thus the reason Bush didn't get their support or why he broke a promise to go back for a vote. The reason the UN isn't in there today with forces is because they were not convinced of Saddams so called aresonal of WMD.

The US did have a choice in that we could have let the inspections go forth since they were producing results. This is one of those myths that the administration keeps using.

One of the biggest problems with this report is that it's fallen in the same kind of "reporting" that much of this administration has worked under. That is much of it is BLACKED OUT. When they held up the report did anyone notice the several areas that were blocked out? A large portion of the report wasn't and won't be released at least until after the elections. Isn't that a little convenient for the Bush administration? If they are truly innocent on all sides of this issue then why wait? Let's see it all.

I resent Bush and Cheney continuing to repeat the same old lies and yet the media laps it up with hardly an utter. When you do question them they stomp off the stage, refuse to answer like they are above it all or hide behind "National Security" and some people buy this. The way this administation operates it's clear they don't feel accountable to anyone and yet they are supposed to be accoutable to the American people. What's even more disturbing is how many people who wear a flag, and claim themselves true Patriost refuse to hold them accountable and treat them like they are above the law and above answering to the American people.

Go figure.

Why do liberals keep lying about what bush said?

Why do you bother to post when you offer nothing of substance to the discussion?

There are many mysteries in this life now isn't there?

This isn't a discussion of substance now, is it, it is a silly bush bash that starts off by implying that bush said saddam was an imminent threat, something he never said.

Why do you silly liberals insist on posting crap like this? The truth to hard to handle?

Amazing

Thats it. I'm throwing my hands up to this entire affair. Anyone who looks to this situation with anything even resembling an objective manner cannot possibly come to a conclusion that so unequivocally supports Bush and his actions as what I've been reading here as of late.

I'm outta here until the bad taste left in my mouth is gone. Later all.

Cool, one down...