George Dubya is the man!

[briantech98]

Look we could sit here and quibble all day long about what the definition of "lie" is, and whether or not Bush did it. Thats really missing the big picture.

Bush2 sat on national television, across all the networks, and gave several 10-15 minute speeches to the american public about the weapons of mass destruction that saddam currently had and was about to use against us. it was a scare tactic against the US people, and it worked. when you listen to what he said, and how he said it, all that gets conjured up in your head is "oh crap, saddam's got nukes sitting on the top of ICBMs in fully functional silo's around the country, all pointed at the US??? go get him george!"

all bush was trying to do was scare us. scare us into wanting to goto war, beause fear is power. when you make people afraid, you can do anything to them in the name of protecting them, including taking all their rights away (patriot act anyone? homeland security?). that is simply just not right. fear is how hitler got the normal, rationally minded german people to go along with his war march.

one barrel of mustard gas is not a weapon of "MASS" destruction, i'm sorry but it just isn't. They had weapons, possibly. But they definitly did not have the resources to distribute those weapons in any kind of "mass destructive" way. Thats the real issue here. Its the fact that bush blew the entire thing waaaaaaaay out of proportion and made the whole issue seem much much much more terrifying and real of a threat than it is.

so thats what he was lying about, and thats what bothers me about what he did.

Also the fact that, once we were actually engaged in iraq, and it started to become apparent to the US public that, no kids, in fact there isn't any kind of real, imminent threat sitting in a warehouse in iraq, did the war become about liberating the iraqi people. why did the bush administration feel it necessary to change their story mid-war? if bush got our approval for the war by telling us iraq had WMD's and was gonna use them, but then once we're IN the war, now all of a sudden its to free iraq? why dont you free tibet instead, and stop sending this country into senseless wars.

iraq was not and is not any kind of real threat to the US. they simply don't have the means to be one. the only thing iraq was a threat to was it's own people, and the surrounding middle eastern countries. i really don't understand why the right doesn't understand that the middle east is a bad place to be mucking around in. you gotta treat them suckers with kid gloves, not sledgehammers.

if we want to neutralize real threats to this country, we should be focusing on places like north korea or china.

[TimeLord]

And on another note,,,,,

The U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda [a terrorist organization/bunch of thugs],Al Aaeda is not a country it is a traveling road show.

[Sean 94z28]

I claim no political affiliation, and vote the issues. Here is my observations:

Liberals claimed before the election that GW was dumb as toast, now he has masterminded the greatest deception in political history. Bush is just another President, with no more power than any other. Our government that WE elected has gotten us where we are, not Bush or Bill.

Raising taxes during economic prosperity and lowering them during hard times is Economics 101. Our ecomony was flailing and our GOvt voted in the appropriate tax strategy.

Now we all know that Brain is a Mideast expert (or I assumed so since he says were not) and would have done things very different, he just isn't willing to say what should have been done. Only well funded terrorist organizations are a real threat to us, we need to nail their source of funds and resources (including places where they could export WMDs, even if it is less than likely it will happen). I won't claim to be an expert, but I am married to someone who was born and raised in Iran (22 years), and she says "Make no mistake about it, these fundementalists understand one thing - death, ours or theirs, we choose." Thats is why they are not afraid, they have been allowed to deal the death (see prev summary of attacks), with what is zero reprecussions from their level of understanding. She comes from a mixed religion family in Iran, forced to escape from their home following the revolution (Where BTW 6 million people WITH guns, overthrew 30 million who were NOT allowed to own them).

I got lots of other gripes, but I'll keep it to a couple.
Briantech: Well seriously excuse us for being the US, the MOST generous nation in the world. We sacraficed millions of our young people to save the world not once, but twice. We work butts off (to pay taxes) and gives BILLIONS of dollars away in charity and economic support to every neeedy corner of the world. We share our technology and we open our borders to those who want a better life. So were hated for, everybody hates us, yeah thats its. We can't control our borders cause everyone wants in, but were hated.

The type of hatred you describe is similar to the hate you have towards the Pres., unjustified.
Here is the difference between us and them. If the fundementalists had the military advantage on us (to the extreme we have on them), you would no longer be free. They WOULD use those terrible weapons to destroy us and our way of living in a heartbeat. WE save our firepower for legitimate threats (yes we have made mistakes evaluating those threats in the past, were human). Point is, diplomacy doesn't always work.

Get a clue, were not hated because of what we did to "them". All we have ever done is try to help others less fortunate than us. Were hated cause were the most powerful nation on the planet.

Here are some new (although not recommended) solutions to the threat of violent fundementalists:

1. Give all the countries nukes, and then we'll all be "equal" and we can sit around together and sing Kumbuya.

2. Withdraw all our troops everywhere, don't come when anobody calls for help for any reason, and issue a big apology to all those nice terrorists we upset, and promise not to do it again. Of course we won't stop making them rich from oil, but at least we won't make them mad at us.

Their beliefs, NOT our actions, is the fuel for their hatred.

A nuke on our soil is when, not if. I believe we have the right to avoid such a scenario by any means possible. Including the evaluation and destruction of PROVEN threats to human life. This is what I worry about, not that my guy lost the election in a close race (biggest liberal issue ever).

Nothing we can do will make the fundementalists like us, deal with it. Now mitigate violent threats or not?

Opinions below:
GW has handled the economy and terrorism the best way possible.
GW invokes his religion way too much for my confort level.
GW did NOT steal the election (independent media sponsered recounts proved that out) - yes I know he got less actual TOTAL votes, but that is not how our election system works.
GW really doesn't seem that bright to me (but smart enough to have strong advisors)
GW is treated like a rich racist by the opposing party, while having the most culturally and gender diverse cabinet in history.
GW is wrong about many issues, abortion, gay rights, war on drugs, Russian foriegn policy.

Another Liberal agenda flaw: Get out of the Mideast oil addiction fast, but no offshore or Alaskan wilderness drilling. Hurry up with Hydrogen power cars (their global savior), but NO more nuke plants (the only viable source of Hydrogen in the quantities needed for our transportation system).

Politics, grrrr.
Sean

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by briantech98
Look we could sit here and quibble all day long about what the definition of "lie" is, and whether or not Bush did it. Thats really missing the big picture.

No it is not. The democratic plan for getting Kerry elected in 2004 is based 100% on making Bush out to be a liar. (It used to be based on the economy but they are having to stop that because it is improving.) This is what all of those web sites you have posted are trying to do. And they have met with obvious success. The definition of a lie is the main issue. A lie is a lie when at the time it is spoken is known to be untrue. The democrats are trying to make voters believe that if you say something that is believed to be true and turns out to not be true that that is a lie. No it is not. The democrats are lying about the definition of a lie. I don't understand why people can not understand that.

Originally posted by briantech98


Bush2 sat on national television, across all the networks, and gave several 10-15 minute speeches to the american public about the weapons of mass destruction that saddam currently had and was about to use against us. it was a scare tactic against the US people, and it worked. when you listen to what he said, and how he said it, all that gets conjured up in your head is "oh crap, saddam's got nukes sitting on the top of ICBMs in fully functional silo's around the country, all pointed at the US??? go get him george!"

I have never heard anyone anywhere until now say that anybody thought Iraq had ICBMs with nuclear weapons on them. I assume you are exaggerating this to make a point.

Originally posted by briantech98


all bush was trying to do was scare us. scare us into wanting to goto war, beause fear is power. when you make people afraid, you can do anything to them in the name of protecting them, including taking all their rights away (patriot act anyone? homeland security?). that is simply just not right. fear is how hitler got the normal, rationally minded german people to go along with his war march.

one barrel of mustard gas is not a weapon of "MASS" destruction, i'm sorry but it just isn't. They had weapons, possibly. But they definitly did not have the resources to distribute those weapons in any kind of "mass destructive" way. Thats the real issue here. Its the fact that bush blew the entire thing waaaaaaaay out of proportion and made the whole issue seem much much much more terrifying and real of a threat than it is.

I did not say they had one barrel of mustard gas. They found a warehouse full of it. It was a banned weapon and he was supposed to dispose of it. He did not. That is a violation of the UN resolution.

For a country that did not have the resources to distribute a chemical weapon they did a pretty good job of it on more than one occasion.

Originally posted by briantech98


so thats what he was lying about, and thats what bothers me about what he did.

Also the fact that, once we were actually engaged in iraq, and it started to become apparent to the US public that, no kids, in fact there isn't any kind of real, imminent threat sitting in a warehouse in iraq, did the war become about liberating the iraqi people. why did the bush administration feel it necessary to change their story mid-war? if bush got our approval for the war by telling us iraq had WMD's and was gonna use them, but then once we're IN the war, now all of a sudden its to free iraq? why dont you free tibet instead, and stop sending this country into senseless wars.

iraq was not and is not any kind of real threat to the US. they simply don't have the means to be one. the only thing iraq was a threat to was it's own people, and the surrounding middle eastern countries. i really don't understand why the right doesn't understand that the middle east is a bad place to be mucking around in. you gotta treat them suckers with kid gloves, not sledgehammers.

if we want to neutralize real threats to this country, we should be focusing on places like north korea or china.

Bush did not need out approval for this. UN resolution 687 gave any member state the authority to take action against Iraq for not complying with the armistice signed in 1991 by Iraq. That armistice gave Iraq 15 days to get rid of the WMDs. In 1994 which was more than 15 days after Iraq signed the armistice, Terrik Azziz admitted that they had WMDs. At that point, any member state had the authority under UN resolution 687 to resume the hostilities of 1991 and take him out. Clinton should have done it then.

Iraq was a threat to the United States. Al Quada had training in Iraq. They had a base in north east Iraq where they had a fuselage of a plane to practice taking over airplanes. The main hijacker of 9/11 had training there along with several others. Documents found there after we took the camp showed this. Iraq was harboring these murderers. It would be very naive to think that if Iraq had developed a nuclear weapon that they wouldn't give it to Al Quada to use it against the west. I personally think that was a long way off for them. I think it is very interesting that they found a whole underground facility below a nuclear plant that the UN inspectors did not find. That shows how hard it is to find something if someone wants to hide it.