Messiah in the white house

You are lucky Beth is a forgiving person, Momma Angel.

It's not a big deal, MoAn. I prefer to address other posters other than as "you". MA means Merry Andrew to me, so I needed something else. <shrug>. I'll try to remember to do the upper/lower case thing if it makes it easier for you. moan is faster to type than MoAn, so you may see that again on occasion.

Thank you ehBeth. I am very glad you are a forgiving person! And don't worry about the upper and lower case on my account. I gotcha!

George W. Bush has, since his conversion, demonstrated a Messiah Complex. This is a slight bump in the road diversion from the corrupt Bush-Walker families' crusade for power and wealth.

The general definition of a complex is a phenomena, or a psychological wish, which resides within the person and which does not manifest in him consciously, but nevertheless it affects him and through its power he often behaves unaware of the true inner reason. The Messiah complex is the will, intention, compulsion to be a messiah, to be the redeemer and savior of the world.

For more information:
http://www.thehope.org/mescompl.htm

Bumblebee,

(This is meant as a joke.) Are you a psychiatrist or did you just stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

George Bush is trying to do what's right for the country. He is the President. So, because he's trying to do right that makes him believe he is trying to be a Messiah?

Why do we have to label everything? We used to call kinds of things choices and behaviors. Today we label them as "disorders."

If one person tries to do something that is right and that might start a change in the people, that makes him a Messiah?

I would submit there are those in these forums that stand up for what they believe in (on both sides) and feel and have stated they feell that it is their duty to humankind to do everything they can to change the minds of others to see it there way (so to speak). Does this make them wanting to be a Messiah?

Re: Messiah in the white house

This is just your typical, liberal delusion. Here is what actually happened:

1. Saddam Hussein annexed and invaded Kuwait. He also had programs to create chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and had succeeded at least with the former two.
2. At Kuwait's request, we and others made him give Kuwait back, and made him sign a surrender treaty which included a promise to destroy his WMD and programs and provide clear evidence that he had done so.
3. Over a period of a dozen years, he did not provide us with clear evidence that he had destroyed his WMD and programs, but rather lied, resisted, and obfuscated the UN's efforts to enforce this provision of his surrender.
4. In the grandest spirit of toothless debating societies, the UN refused to enforce its own declarations, but simply continued to issue more, deploring Iraq's behavior and threatening consequences for non-compliance.
5. After years and years of this performance, the US used its military to resolve the Iraq WMD issue for once and for all. Had Iraq been concealing WMD, as was entirely possible based on what was then known, one might have been used against a western city in the near future in a WMD version of 9/11 or Britain's 7/7.

We beat Iraq the first time around and had the nation effectively under our thumb. There was absolutely no call to invade the second time.

The need was caused by Iraq's failure to demonstrate that they had destroyed their WMD and programs, something we had been trying to get them to do for many, many years.

There were two main possibilities, (1) Iraq had destroyed them, but for some reason refused to prove it, despite the fact that they wanted sanctions lifted, (2) they had not destroyed them, but just hidden them better.

Had the latter of these possibilities been true, as it well might have been, the consequence of giving Iraq more, and more, and more time might have been the use of such a weapon in a western city, and, in consequence, the deaths of as many as hundreds of thousands of people per each WMD use, not to mention the specter of an aggressive, evil, dictator with doomsday weapons.

Iraq had no effective way of proving all that after the first war. The first inspectors got pretty much anything left. Just before Iraq II they were allowing the inspectors to do their job until Bush muscled the inspectors out and began shocking and awing everybody with his own agenda for the world.

That is certainly false. If they destroyed their weapons, they could have videotaped the destruction, and led inspectors to where the remnants were buried, etc. Instead, they did this:

June 1997- Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997- Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997- The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997- An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997- While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

etc.

Most of the weapons were destroyed for them. Who has time to video it?

I find it amazing that someone is still trying to defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq by reference to the WMD lies. It's over, Bush invaded, he occupied - or as Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it". Bush broke it, he owns it. Forget defending the invasion and occupation by selecting the currently rostered lie - it happened. There are more pressing things to consider now. Like how to end it.