1
   

Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:35 am
Questions for Karzak (I'll start one by one):

Both Conservatives and Liberals accuse one another of distorting the truth in their respective media. Therefore, we must assume that there is both a 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' media, indicating that both media express a political bias. Would you agree that this is true? A simple yes or no will suffice.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:40 am
cavfancier wrote:
Questions for Karzak (I'll start one by one):

Both Conservatives and Liberals accuse one another of distorting the truth in their respective media. Therefore, we must assume that there is both a 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' media


Not at all. If we assume the overwhelming majority of media is leftist, any media that is fair and balanced will obviously be attacked by the leftist media as being right wing, because they are to the right of the left, even when they are centrist.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:40 am
We know Kerry Edwards and a whole lot of others of the democratic party voted for the Iraq war. They were wrong to do so and thankfully have begun to see the error of their ways. Although some won't admit that it was an error and it is irksome. Sometimes I get just as aggrivated with my own party as the other. I don't know why they just don't tell the truth and say, "the whole country was in the mood to give bush everything he wanted without asking questions and that is why we voted to go to war, it was the political thing to do at the time."

Also, from what I am gathering from these talk shows (been sick so I have been catching up on sunday mornings, usually at church. I think you miss the whole world if you can't watch the sunday morning talk shows) anyway, from what I have been gathering the way the intelligence goes gets finalized and what the committees in the congress end up seeing is what those in the CIA want them to see and they left out of the reports some of the doubts about some of intellegence that was being was being given out.

Bush may not have used the direct words "imminent threat" (although he might have, have to research that if I feel like it)but he said words that it made it seem like we were right around the corner from another 9/11 if we didn't do something about Iraq instead of giving the inspections and other measures time to work. There are a million places on the net to back what I just up; but I just don't feel like searching right now.

setanna, get your point.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:42 am
revel wrote:
"the whole country was in the mood to give bush everything he wanted without asking questions and that is why we voted to go to war, it was the political thing to do at the time."


You assume that edwards lied about iraq being an imminent threat because he smply felt like agreeing with bush?

Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:43 am
Ok , I jump to conclussions, but since you choose to selectively quote what is more convenient to your point of view all the while refusing to answer with direct responses, to direct questions , I must assume that you are incapable of answering them.

Razz
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:48 am
Karzak wrote:
Why do we let the liberals get away with this crap?

Bush never called Iraq an imminent threat.

Karzak wrote:
What isn't real is this "Bush said imminent threat" BS.

Ooh kay ... so, the below (from Bush's speech to the nation at the advent of the war, when he announced that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq) does not strike you as claiming an imminent threat?

President Bush wrote:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. [..]

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. [..] Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. [..] the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

On an aside, also 'cute' to remember is this claim by Bush, in that speech: "[The Iraqi regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:51 am
astromouse wrote:
Ok , I jump to conclussions, but since you choose to selectively quote what is more convenient to your point of view


LOL, I quote to make points. The points are simple and factual.

The point is that the vast majority of politicians in the US and abroad believed saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that they posed a threat. There was good reason to believe this, including reports from several intelligence agencies and saddams own actions.

The point is the liberation of iraq was done with broad, bipartisan support.

Now the left wing wants to plead temporary insanity and blame bush alone, hoping no doubt for wide spread amneisia.

I am just trying to keep the record straight and stick to the facts.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:53 am
nimh wrote:

Ooh kay ... so, the below (from Bush's speech to the nation at the advent of the war, when he announced that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq) does not strike you as claiming an imminent threat?


LOL, it is the US making an imminent threat to saddam. Giving saddam yet another chance for a peaceful resolution.

nimh wrote:

On an aside, also 'cute' to remember is this claim by Bush, in that speech: "[The Iraqi regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

Which is true.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:55 am
Karzak wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
Questions for Karzak (I'll start one by one):

Both Conservatives and Liberals accuse one another of distorting the truth in their respective media. Therefore, we must assume that there is both a 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' media


Not at all. If we assume the overwhelming majority of media is leftist, any media that is fair and balanced will obviously be attacked by the leftist media as being right wing, because they are to the right of the left, even when they are centrist.


I suppose that infers that Ann Coulter is 'fair and balanced'?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 11:56 am
Quote:
You assume that edwards lied about iraq being an imminent threat because he smply felt like agreeing with bush?


No, I am saying if the country is of a trusting mind like we were post 9/11 then both politically and the way they felt themselves, the congress and political people are not going to dig deeper and find out the truth. (thats why I think a majority of the democrats and some republicans voted for the war.)

But as for what Kerry and Edwards and Clinton making those statements about Iraq being a threat; they thought it was at the time.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:08 pm
revel wrote:


But as for what Kerry and Edwards and Clinton making those statements about Iraq being a threat; they thought it was at the time.


So did bush, and all three were likely correct.

If you believe the liberation of iraq was a bad thing, and if you think kerry and edwards simply played along without digging deeper, why is that an excuse?

Everyone had the same data from clintons cia.
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:09 pm
This is what we are supposed to believe. Bush didn't use THE WORD "immeninet". However he did use such words as:

"urgent"
"growing"
"immediate"

Condi referred to things like "mushroom clouds"

BUT folk since he DIDN'T USE THAT WORD then it's ok if he implied, referred to, inferred, suggested, mislead and exaggerated. I guess what the Bush Loyalist are trying to tell us is that it all depends on what you think the meaning of "is" is. Rolling Eyes

BTW people saddam GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THE FREAKING 80'S AND EARLY 90'S AND WHO WAS PRESIDENT? That would be Reagan who SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS and Bush Sr. WHO SAT SILENT WHEN HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. For the love of God who doesn't know this and why in the hell should we be outraged years later if we weren't outraged when it happened???????????? Not to mention there was something called the................now what was it? Question ...................It's right there


oh yeah THE GULF WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:37 pm
Redheat wrote:
That would be Reagan who SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS


LOL, another liberal lie Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:39 pm
Do you people not see how this joker is feeding on all of the attention?

It hasn't made the responses any more coherent, and you're doing nothing to convince this person of anything.

No more of my time will be spent here . . .
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:47 pm
astromouse wrote:
Quote:
When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott
McClellan
claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush
Administration
had never said Iraq was a threat. He said, "the media have chosen to use
the
word 'imminent'" to describe the Iraqi "threat" - not the Bush
Administration.

But the record shows the Administration repeatedly said Iraq was an
"imminent threat." On May 7th, less than a week after the president
announced the end of major combat operations, White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer was asked, "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a
direct
and imminent threat to the U.S.?" He replied, "Absolutely." Similarly,
in
November 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "I would look
you
in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself
this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an
imminent
threat the month before or two months before or three months before or
six
months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent
threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a
month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you
must do something?" Most notably, Vice President Cheney said two days
after
President Bush's 2003 State of the Union that Saddam Hussein "threatens
the
United States of America."


Source

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Source


He didn't , he used his lap dogs to do it for him.

@Karzak:
Now , will you answer MY question?
Or will you storm out the the room like he did?
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:48 pm
Karzak wrote:
Redheat wrote:
That would be Reagan who SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS


LOL, another liberal lie Rolling Eyes


Karzak- This will be my last post to you because you just aren't worth the time it takes to type out the words to your asnine ignorant comments.

I will leave you with this thought and I mean it in all sincerity.


If Ignorance was currency you would truly be the wealthest man on earth.
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:50 pm
Moishe-

Which one of those you quoted actually invaded Iraq?

yeah, can we move on from this stupid and disengenious arguement?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:51 pm
Karzak wrote:
revel wrote:


But as for what Kerry and Edwards and Clinton making those statements about Iraq being a threat; they thought it was at the time.


So did bush, and all three were likely correct.

If you believe the liberation of iraq was a bad thing, and if you think kerry and edwards simply played along without digging deeper, why is that an excuse?

Everyone had the same data from clintons cia.


Bush did dig deeper in an effort to more convince the public that we needed to go to war and that is when some doubts were raised but he ignored any doubts of the WMD and other such intellegence that he did know since he did conduct another iraq inquiry before going to war as the outing of the cia agent incident is one proof of.

As for Kerry and Edwards and all of them (even Clinton agreeing at the time) voting for the war without digging deeper for knowledge since lives were at stake, there is no excuse and they were wrong and they are still wrong for not admitting it. ( was just saying why I think they did; which could be wrong, not excusing it)

Before you may ask; why do I vote for Kerry and Edwards if I believe this about them. Kerry and Edwards are better than Bush. Cheney is so bad, he shouldn't even be mentioned.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 12:52 pm
Redheat wrote:
Moishe-

Which one of those you quoted actually invaded Iraq?


LOL, the US military invaded iraq, with the backing of bush, kerry, edwards, the majority of congress and the majority of the american people.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2004 01:04 pm
Yes, we gave the sitting president the benefit of the doubt....not all of us.......now most thinking people who pay attention know better......you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time....etc. etc.

Seems especially on the money in the case of this administration..............
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:27:46