"Bush Asks Nation to show patience with Iraq" [Archive]

View Full Version : "Bush Asks Nation to show patience with Iraq"

07-04-2007, 03:25 PM

"Bush Asks Nation to show patience with Iraq," is one of the stories in the Houston Chronnicle.
I don't see why we shouldn't. Fair is Fair. After all, he listens to us......

John56{vg}

07-04-2007, 03:46 PM

LOL, TG. I love it.

My own pet peeve of Mr. Bush's speeches is when he says, "The American People have to understand . . . "

I think we understand pretty damn good. It is him that needs to understand!!!

Have a great fourth as we go forward trying to get out from under the thumb of another tyrant.

peace,

John

07-04-2007, 04:01 PM

Hi John56, I thought I'd find you here. The story title was so good a setup that I just couldn't resist the temptation to make a joke out of it.
The irony of it had me laughing 10 minutes after I read it, and I'll still be chuckling over it later tonight. Some body, some place, in this story lives in Twilight Land

Ayla Silver

07-05-2007, 06:45 PM

Heh...wow, I didn't catch the sarcasm at first. I must be sleep deprived.

Funny, though. Thanks for sharing.

Sir_Russell

08-14-2007, 01:10 PM

Painful truths are the funniest since we have to laugh before we start crying and bush has given us way to many of those moments

zasvig

08-14-2007, 02:18 PM

wow seems to be a lot of people here that dont like Bush. But how meany of you know whats going on over there. other then the news that only tells half truths and sometimes out right lies. hell they cant even get it right when they are telling the people about the deaths and where they are. im not trying to cause a sterr but most people dont know what is really happing in Iraq

ThisYouWillDo

12-22-2007, 06:19 PM

Just as well the world doesn't. How many tens of thousands have died just so a foreign country can be governed by Bush's puppets? (Between 79,155 and 86,244 at the time of writing - and that's just in Iraq*)

Bin Laden? Taleban? Saddam? All evil, granted. All better destroyed than left to their own devices, admitted. But do it honestly if you're going to. Don't use them as excuses for empire building. Kill Bin Laden, despite the money and help USA gave him, because of the World Trade Center, and destroy the Taleban because, despite US support and tolerance of their opium growing and the wicked treatment of Afghans, they overstepped the mark by (allegedly) allowing Bin Laden to hide in Afghanistan for a while. Kill Saddam because of the atrocities he committed against his own people, but not because he had WMDs (he didn't) or because he supported Bin Laden (he didn't! He'd have turned Bin Laden over in a trice if he could have).

And when you destroy a country's infrastructure, you're responsible for what happens afterwards. If you neglect to rebuild it, you'll pay the price.

Who has the most innocent blood on his hands? Bush, Bin Laden or Saddam?

TYWD

* Source Iraq Body Count - http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

mkemse

12-24-2007, 02:09 AM

"Bush Asks Nation to show patience with Iraq," is one of the stories in the Houston Chronnicle.
I don't see why we shouldn't. Fair is Fair. After all, he listens to us......

Bush needs to listen to Americans and I believe we all FIRMLY exprssed our feelings toward his policy Last November when the Democatrs took over Congress, we have ben patient with him for 7 years now
When he initaly annouced his pland to invade Iraq he clearly stated his planned was to get in and get out within 7 months NOT 7 years, then he says he and his advisors "Misjudged" the insurgents power, well folkds when you go into any Comflict you have to be better prepared, you need to know who you are fighting and how many their are, the he has the gall to land on a Air Craft Carrier, in a Flight Suit, Deplane with a HUGE Banner daying "Mission Accomplished" if i may ask again What MISSION was accomplished??
The United States needs to stop policing the Wolrd and push our system on others
We have a Major Homelsss Population in this Country, A Major Drug problem in this Country, our fue prices are outrageous, he seems more content on Fighting a War that nevershould have been, then to take care of Domestic issues
As the old saying goes "Until you Cut your own lawn, do not worry and complsin sbout your neighbors weeds"
Also when he took officein 2000, we had a $500 million Dollar Surplus, we now have a defecit over over $1 Trillion Dollars,, gas was $1.50 when Clinton left office, it is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places and Finaly

WHEN CLINTON LIED NOBODY DIED

wmrs2

03-01-2008, 05:27 PM

mkemse

03-01-2008, 06:33 PM

ThisYouWillDo and mkemse listen up! Did you ever hear of the silent majority? You don't hear from them much but when election time comes, they knock your sox's off, like in 2000 and 2004. They are the ones who put Bush in office. They are listening to every thing you quote out of context. They are insulted by your disrespect and bad manners towards the President. They will send you back to Twilight Land. There is a disagreement as who is in Twilight Land Mr. TJ.

IN 2004 THE UNITED STATES SUPRME COURT PUT GEORGE BUSH IN OFFICE NOT THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE READ YOUR HISTORY, THIS IS FACT

If you interpret the 2006 election to a rejection of Bush's war, you read the results through dancing glasses, like dancing in the streets which Thorne and I have invented. You say: WHEN CLINTON LIED NOBODY DIED like its funny. It's not. You insult those who voted for Bush time and again. Is that what you mean to do. If that is your motive that's not very smart success or gentleman behavior. Parents of our solders who died in Iraq are hurt when you say this. Only you and your kind think its funny.

Are you here to debate or insult your Brothers and Sisters? You and few others here sound like a broken record against Bush. Your state very few facts and know very little about reality of war.

Bush has broken more laws and has commid more impeachavble offenses the Richard Nixon ever did, he makes Nixon look like a Saint

As Far as The 2006 Elections, there where Repbilcans who supported Bush for years that were voted out of Officica is Clamering for a Change
iF THIS not true how do you explain the control shift of power in November of 2006 from the Republican Controlled House and Senate to thast of The Democrats in chagres even if in the House they only have a Majority of 1 vote not enough to override vetoes
How do you explain then that in 2000 when Bush rain against Gore , that due to the Hanfng chad issue in Florida, the Suprmem Court Of The United Stated GAVE THE OFFICE of the Presidency To George W. Bush, this is a matter of FActual Histiry, this is the onlly time that the Unisted Staes Suprmem Court toook the decision making of the aAmerican Voters out of our hands and basicly said "We are lacing Bush in the White House" Your Votes do not count"

Really Democracy In Action, why should me vote NO count, why should the Suprmem Court make thisdecsion and not the Electorate of the Country, that is what a Democracy is all about

As Far A Bush and Impeahcment goes:

President Bush has admitted that he has authorized the use of surveillance upon American citizens and residents. He has argued that he has the authority to do so, that he has balanced the need to spy on us and our civil liberties. Unfortunately, his claims do not withstand scrutiny.

Firstly, the spying upon Americans without probable cause, due process and a warrant supported by evidence and sworn before a competent magistrate violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. It is essential to the argument to understand that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not create the rights of citizens, but places our government in the position of GUARANTEEING these inherent and INALIENABLE rights. Infringing upon these rights in any manner is unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral and evil.

The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to associate and communicate unimpeded by state and federal government. Merely communicating overseas is not grounds for monitoring, marking, flagging or otherwise recording the communications of US citizens. Current law allows for the presentation of evidence of criminal or terrorist activities as probable cause to issue a wiretap order. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for this administration to circumvent the rights guaranteed by this amendment.

The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The US courts have held that a wiretap is an unreasonable search unless it is executed upon a valid warrant. The US congress has held such as being so unreasonable that it has passed the following laws that guarantee limits upon the execution of surveillance, investigation and record keeping by use of communication, telecommunication and records (including dossiers and case files):

- The Telecommunications Privacy Act of 1984 (TPA)
- The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
(ECPA)
- The Privacy Act of 1974
- The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception
And Interception Of Oral Communications
- The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000
- The Freedom of Information Act

So, not only has Mr. Bush violated the Constitution, his oath or office, but also (at a minimum) six federal laws. In so doing, he has violated his duties and obligations as the chief executive officer of this great nation and should be impeached. However, like his father before him, George W. Bush has wrapped himself in a cloak of patriotism, protectionism and fascism in the name of national interests and security.

He has lied, misled and/or relied upon inappropriate intelligence DATA to engage in an improper invasion of a sovereign nation, violated the UN Charter (which is part and parcel of our Constitution by law), has circumvented our fundamental rights, and portrays himself as our great protector. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Khomeini, the Saudi Royal Family and the Taliban all made the same claims of protection, but even Mr. Bush has recognized their actions as contrary to fundamental liberties, democracy and basic human rights.

The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of due process. The acts of spying on American citizens and residents without application, review, approval and issuance of a warrant is, without a doubt, a complete negation and circumvention of due process. There can be no excuse for such an end-run around due process. Such circumvention of due process is a breach of the highest magnitude of our fundamental liberties.

The 9th Amendment limits all members of government, including the president, from exceeding the powers and authority provided by the Constitution. These limits include any and all efforts to usurp, circumvent and/or by-pass the rights of US citizens and residents. The 9th Amendment specifically reserves all rights not specifically assigned elsewhere to the state governments and the PEOPLE. Mr. Bush's claims that he has authority to spy upon US citizens and residents by virtue of an executive order betrays his "anything I want to do" agenda and his fascist demeanor.

The 14th Amendment, in the first section, applies all federal protections and obligations under the Constitution to state governments (equal protection) and specifically reasserts the obligation of due process.

It is unconscionable that anyone holding the highest political office of our nation would cast aside so many provisions of our Constitution, especially those that were specifically included by amending the original structure to prevent autocratic and/or authoritarian abuses.

Violation of our Constitution is treason. It is so not only in principle, but also by the words of the oath taken by each officer of the government, military and high office. The oath of office includes specific regard for defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Once again, George W. Bush has violated that oath, violated the Constitution, violated federal laws, and made himself an enemy of freedom and civil rights. Mr. Bush should resign in shame and disgrace. In the alternative, our House of Representatives should bring about an immediate impeachment proceeding, and the Senate should convict. Should Mr. Bush not resign, and should congress fail to impeach and convict, then we should rise up against such abuses even to the point of militant overthrow of the current administration.

Mr. Bush has offered lame excuses, ridicule and denial as his only defense for his actions. He expects us to trust him. But his record of hypocrisy provides categorical evidence that he cannot be trusted. While he is advocating for liberty, freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is eroding and usurping civil liberties here in the US the supposed bedrock of freedom in our world. We cannot be advocating for freedom elsewhere while aborting freedom here. We cannot be advocating freedom and liberty in Iraq, under extreme lack of security, while we abandon liberties here in the name of security. But that is the hypocrisy that Mr. Bush is shoveling upon us.

Mr. Bush has appealed for us to trust his judgment regarding the protection of our civil liberties. Our fundamental form of government does not call for such trust because our forefathers and framers knew that men, left unchecked and balanced, are subject to corruption of power. It is exactly because of the corrupting nature of power that our government was built upon a system of checks and balances, of guaranteed rights and liberties, and of due process.

Mr. Bush's judgment has removed many of the checks and balances, deliberately set aside the guaranteed rights, and ignored due process. He has done so not only by spying upon us, but also by circumventing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, denying prisoners access to fundamental legal representations, invading a country without legal right, using a process of "rendition" to circumvent rules against torture, advocating for torture as a tool of interrogation, and well, we can't really be sure of what else, can we?

While Mr. Bush proclaims his religious fervor, his actions are anything but moral by any standard, not even the Christianity he professes. He proclaims that he understands his role, but does not act within the scope and limits of that role. He makes excuses and expects us to live with his breach of office, law and trust. We cannot trust Mr. Bush or anyone in his inner circle.

Beyond the fact that we cannot trust Mr. Bush is his admission (finally) that he relied upon poor intelligence to bring us into the invasion of Iraq. It was his job to make sure that the intelligence he received was accurate to the highest degree. The facts are in we know that Mr. Bush pushed an agenda of invasion despite being advised that the intelligence he used was suspect and potentially useless.

Several agencies and foreign sources provided this feedback to his administration. We are thusly faced with the reality that either Mr. Bush, and his entire administration, and the entire intelligence infrastructure, is completely incompetent, or that Mr. Bush and others conspired to push forward an agenda of war mongering to meet their own needs and desires.

It is unfathomable that the entire intelligence infrastructure universally failed. It is unbelievable that there was no voice of reason among all the leaders advising Mr. Bush So we can only conclude that Mr. Bush is an outright liar and pushed his agenda regardless of the dangers for our nation, the dangers of war, and the tragedies of our losses.

Bush lied and our troops have died.
Bush lied and his administration spied.
Bush lied and our liberties were denied.
Bush lied and freedoms were circumscribed.
Bush lied and our laws he did not abide.
Face it Bush does nothing without having first lied.

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how

Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq
See also this analysis of the fraud by retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega.

Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]
Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

just a slight over view of Bush's Impeachable offenses, if you care for more feel free to ask

mkemse

03-01-2008, 06:51 PM

also, the President Of The United State does NOT have the Constutional Authority to invade a soveriegn conutry without due reason in the case of Iraq the WMD's proved to be non existent even Colin Powell admiited that as did the United Nations
atthe time of the Invaion, now the Prseident admitts 5 years later "Yes our Inteligance was Faulty" some escuse they "THOUGHT" WMD's exist noone hadseen them, the UN Inspection TEam Found NO TRACE of them yet Bush was positive they were there, a President needs to lok at Intelleance and determine how accurate it is BEFORE he goes to war and not say later, "Well folks sorry, we where wrong, we made a mistake WMD's did in FACT NOT EXIST" tell that to the parent of 3,4000 men and women who havedied in Iraw that Bush made a stragegic erroe and is sorry, 1 reason colin powel quit as his job was due to the faulty intelligence leading to the war and Donalds Rumsfeld decided to try and put out a Raging Fire with Kerosenn,e and amzinlhy enough he botched up our invasion and guees what, he resigned also, id everone was soo right under Bush why did powell leave why did Rumsfeld leave? Rumsfeld failed miserably with his warm plan that was not thought out

and prior to the invasion Bush went on TV expalinig his mission and plan and said we would be in and out in 90 days, also 5 years ago he landed on a Air CRaft Carrier in the flight suit with a HUGE BANNER acroos the side of the Ship the read "Mission Accomplished" what mission, and this was even before we found Saddam, what mission did he accomplish in Iraq?? we have no right t force our values on other countries, what right do we have to march into any soverign country and say "Hey folks WE asa Nation do not like they way you run thingso we will over thorw your govenrment and make it like ours, we do not have that right it is illgal and violates the US Constution
Iran now has more possible WMD;s but we are turing out back on them, we are not goint o invade to get them to shut of their Uranium poricessing for nuculear weapons, if do no other reason, all our resourcecd are tied up in Iraq and Afhganistan
the President ask Congree (supposedly) for this they approved his request , but keep in mind the Repbulcian controled the congress at the time and there was not enough Democrat support to over ride his request andsay no, and amaziingly in 2006 all or most of the Senators that Supported Bush 'ss Request, the Republican Senators and State Representaives, were voted out of office and replaced by Democratic Control

wmrs2

03-02-2008, 12:07 AM

Gosh!

mkemse

03-04-2008, 08:36 AM

"Bush Asks Nation to show patience with Iraq," is one of the stories in the Houston Chronnicle.
I don't see why we shouldn't. Fair is Fair. After all, he listens to us......

He has never listen to the American people as he himself said "Our withdrawl will be based on what my advisors say NOT what the American People say or ask for"

if that is listening to the American People we are in bigger truoble with his Adminstration then ever then anyone could imagine

We have been fair and patient for 5 years and even more so after Saddam wascaptured he lands on an Aircraft Carrier jupms out of a fighterjet with a HUGE banner across the side of the Air Craft Carrier Readi "Mission Accomplished" what mission was accomplished??
Also when he first announced his plan to invade he said we would be in and out in 90 days then 4 years later says "We mijudged our enemy" are we not supposed ot know our enemy BEFORE we go to war against them??

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 01:24 PM

TG we recognized your sarcasm. That was a good way to express your frustration. Dis you recognize the logic behind your frustration?

ZASVIG understood it: "wow seems to be a lot of people here that dont like Bush."

Also what John56 said was good: ""The American People have to understand . . . "

I think we understand pretty damn good. It is him that needs to understand!!!

What Is heard here is opinions based on experience. The experience being referred to has been run through a strict dialectic logic. There are critics of this type of logic and most academic philosophers reject this type of logic when it comes to solving community and political problems.

I am a little handicapped here because we are not allowed to use s******ism in these forums. Why, I do not know but it's just as well because the use of a couple synonyms will shed additional attention to the duping power dialectic logic has on its victims. The synonyms are the words Liberal and Communism. About 25 to 30 years ago Democratic candidates hated it when their Republican opponents called them Liberal. The country was so opposed to Communism that to brand a person as a Liberal meant sure defeat. In past years that's how Republicans defeated the Democrats.

Over the bast 10 or 15 years Liberal lost its connection to Communism. But when a Liberal did get elected, Bill Clinton for example, he already had a philosophical passion for Communism. This also explains why the Liberal press did not make a big issue when Bill Clinton shared American technology and nuclear knowhow with China. It also explains why China was allowed to contribute to the Clinton's financial support. They were all soul brothers, the Press, Liberal Democrats, and the Communist.

This also explains why the Liberal Democrats have never been too happy with the end of the Cold War. Is the Liberal Democrats that blame Bush for angering the Left wing governments in the world today. Bush is not attacking the Communist with guns and bullets but rather with the philosophy of democracy and freedom. Dictators and Communist have never loved Republicans because of their traditional American values. It may be true that the world loves Liberal Democrats but there is good reason for this love. Dictators are given freedom to do their evil without having their evil even challenged by a single word from Liberal. Instead they attack their own President Bush.

ThisYouWillDo

03-04-2008, 01:44 PM

It's hardly necessary for me to add anything to mkemse's well-researched postings, except:

It was a minority that voted for Bush: the silent majority remained ... silent. As for being insulted, most of the Americans I have met have apologised for their president - Bush, I mean.

There is a disagreement as who is in Twilight Land Mr. TJ.

WTF are you on about here????

Parents of our solders who died in Iraq are hurt when you say this. Only you and your kind think its funny.

OUR soldiers have died too ... and Canada's, and ... well so many nations have lost men due to Bush's unholy fatwah against Saddam Hussein, and because he's been sucked into the Afghan badlands looking for bin Laden. No invading army has succeded in the Hindu Kush since Alexander the Great's time.

Your soldiers and ours have died because our leaders lied to us. They lied for oil, basically. The parents of British soldiers realise this. If Bush hasn't insulted the parents, I don't know what it takes to do so. If it's not an insult to the Iraqis, I don't know what is. In fact, I don't know who he hasn't insulted.

So I'm quite happy to return the favour:-

Iraq Body Count - Documented civilian deaths from violence
81,632 – 89,103 as at 20:00 GMT 4/3/2008.

Blood on Bush's hands.

Have you seen this website?

Timeline of Treason: The Bush Family Connections to the Nazis http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html

Mind you, I can't connect your president to what went on during the WW2, can I? No. So I leave it to others to do.

TYWD.

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 01:58 PM

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 02:48 PM

ThisYouWillDo

"WTF are you on about here????" It looks like your play house is being torn down or at least shaken. An old time country preacher once said that preaching was like throwing a rock into a pack of dogs. The one that gets hit will come out barking.

What I am about here is that I am using the forum on Politics to exercise my right to expose the Liberal position in politics for what it is. Which I think you will help prove my point. The Conservative politician primarily makes good use of Aristotelian logic whereas the Liberal/Communist tends to favor emotions and fear tactics, like the quote you made in you attack on me, a humble conservative.

I would like to free you from Liberal reasoning. Many good democrats exist in our country who have not been captivated by Liberals. They are fellow conservatives and love their country more than their party. I give you the Blue Dog Democrats as an example.

"Your soldiers and ours have died because our leaders lied to us."

It is more likely that a Liberal has lied to you. Or, is it impossible that a person with Communist leanings to lie to a true democrat like you? Our soldiers died in defense of freedom. I don't care how upset you are that Bush beat you and your Liberal friends. "Bush lied" is a Liberal talking point. Think for yourself. That is what the Liberals want is for you to blow your top when confronted with a true logical argument.

I hope to make your day better. I have no hard feelings towards anybody but we all need to have the ideas we have accepted without logical review challenged by others. In politics, it is even more important because our nation's fate may depend on sound understandings aout Communist and Liberal thought processes. Don't you agree?

mkemse

03-04-2008, 03:58 PM

The President does understand. He knows that the country will not be safe if we pull our armies out of Iraq. The logic the Liberal Democrats are using their Liberal dielectric, just like the Communist did during the Cold War. Blame their opponents for fighting back. Convince the people of the opponent that war is caused by their leaders being thick skinned and hard headed. Which one of you wants him to back off his principles?

It is not true that Iraq did not have WMD's. We know they had them but whether or not there were WMD, Saddam wanted Iran to think Iraq did have them. Saddam hoped the U.N. would allow him to keep pretending their were WMD for fear of Iran. The U.N., the USA. and the USA Congress invaded Iraq because Saddam would not allow U.N. inspections. It appears Saddam feared the vendication that there were no WMD. It was not difficult to fool the CIA into believing Saddam had WMD. No matter who was President, there was a high probasbility they would have followed the intelligence report.

The Liberals wanted to take no credit for the mistake. No lie! Every past president, except Liberal Jimmy Carter, said to Bush, go! Most every member in Congress said go!

It has only been a few years since 9/11, and Obama wants to change the 9/11 mindset of America! Why! The Liberal Press wants a new President that matches their vision of leadership. It has been the Liberals or Communist who have practice scream and blame the President. It was his policies that caused 9/11, they say. That's how they use their logic, the logic of a Liberal.

If Bush understands and he listens then why is it when 67% of Americans say out of Iraq now, he does nothing, when 2 of the top Economists in the Country Beranke of the Federal Reserve Bpard and Investor Warren Buffet says we are in a recession, he says we are not,

I STRONGY AND REGGERISLY RESENT BEING PLACED IN THE SAME Catagory as a COMMUNIST, when you sayLibealsl or Communists, that is an outragious remark to make, I am not more affilifated with the Communist Party, The Rush Limbough is with the DMC do NOT place Liberals and Communists in the same class it is TRUE that IRAQ never Had WMD', when did REPUBILCAN CLOIN PWELL say before the United Nations, they didn't, Why was the UN Ibspection team unable to find them, and why then did BUSH himself even say they had Faulty Intelligence that led to our Invasion of Iraw?? He went in for locate the WMD's then 5 years later said on TV we had faulty intelligence on tihs
Obmam is not trying to get peole to foeget about 9/11, what he is doing is teling people the War in Afganistan is to fight BinLaden and locate him in the area of the Tora Bora Mountains between PAkistand and Afpganistan, what he is say is that our figiting is Iraq is being used a a way of turing attention AWAY from thosewho are repsonisble for 9/11, we should have all our Forcces, and money spendt on the WAr On Terror in Afgansistn loooking for BinLaden and the Talliban and not in Iraq looking for something that does not exist, i would love to see you post documentation as i have that WMD's DID in fact exsist, if you are able to document like i have what Bush ahs done and Document to me that WMD's did exsit I will acknowlege that but as i said even the President said on Nation Wide TV 5 yearsago that the information reguaring WMD's their existance in Iraq which was or reason for invading a SOUVEREIGN UYNTRY WAS FAULT, meanin he had information on something that did not exists
I personaly know 6 families who lost sons/daughter in Iraq and the are far more Anti Bush then I am now.
Also asa side note when Bush sugned the Bill ot offer Medicare D for prescriptiom coverage the bill very specificly states and is very infactic that there can not NO negotiations with Pharacutital Compnanie in and effort to lower drug prices, THank you again Mr. Prsident for allowing me to live on $1,000 a month and have to decide weekly do i buy food or my medication look at the specifics of the Medicare D Bill, and he said if that part of not being able to negotiate with Comapnies for lower prices was not included in the Bill he wouldveto is
All information I have posted here in this thread and others is fully documentent i have reasearched what I have said and pointed out and just just pouted out

BTW thanks to Mr Bush, i had to have a perscription filled recently for 3 -500mg tablets of ******* for back pain, the 3 ***** cost me $45.00, the that was for the Generic version not the brand name

Thank you again Mr. Prsdiednt more making my daily living as unaffordable to me, I hope you are enjoing you $500,00 a year and your Mega Ranch in Texas where you wil probably retire to after the November elections

But please if you are so sure that Iraq HAD WMD's please, please post your evidence i owuldl ove to see it

1 last thing, it is amazing, this country is able to in 1 week, to track down a sinle cow, in an isloated farm in isloated Canada that has mad cow desease, yet after 6 plus years weare unable to locate a 6'9" Terrorist with a Beard in Pakaistan?? please exaplin this??

ThisYouWillDo

03-04-2008, 05:54 PM

Again, I ask, what the fuck are you on about? As a poor ccountry preacher, maybe you couldn't afford the part of the logic lessons you attended that dealt with sticking to the point.

My "playhouse" wasn't shaken by your powers of persuasion, your profundity or perspicacity, but by simple puzzlement. I just didn't understand what that phrase (the one I'd quoted) meant. But I've sussed it now so don't bother explaining.

Meanwhile, I'm happy for you to attack liberalism (and socia1ism and communism if you want to. I doubt you'd criticise right wing extremists, but I'm happy for you to do that too.) That's what makes these threads so much fun! However, unless you're George Bush in disguise, my last post was not an attack on you, but a repudiation of what you had said.

The quotation you seem to refer to were your very own words, so I cannot see how you can blame me for using "fear tactics". Look to yourself for that.

But tell me, what makes you think that the right wing has the monopoly on logic and of dispassionate reasoning? In what way are they denied to liberals and communists? Was not Das Kapital an eminently reasoned work?

Thank you for giving me the Blue Dog Democrats: I shall always treasure them. What do I do with them?

Why is it more likely that a liberal would lie to me than a conservative? My experience of politcians of every hue is that they lie like dogs, or contort the truth so they can say they didn't lie. From Mussolini on the right to Stalin on the left, they are ALL liars. Even the ones in the middle - Nixon, Bush, Thatcher, Blair, cared more for power than for honest-to-God truth. Nixon lied about Watergate, Thatcher about the Belgrano, Bush about WMD's and Saddam's giving aid and succour to bin Laden, Blair about the same thing. Of course they told other lies too, but those are the big ones.

Your soldiers and my soldiers have not died in defence of freedom. If you believe that, you've swallowed another politician's lie. Tell me how Saddam threatened US freedom, or British freedom. Those soldiers died because Bush and Blair were afraid Iraq would come under Russian of Chinese influence - and then where would the oil go? So they put a stop to that before it started, by invading a country that presented no threat and had made no attempt to attack America or Britain. They were never interested in relieving the Iraqi people from the tyranny they had been under - that was another lie. After the invasion, the country collapsed into pure anarchy, and in between killing each other, the Iraqi's amused themselves by taking pot shots at the occupying forces.

wrms: we all need to have the ideas we have accepted without logical review challenged by others. In politics, it is even more important because our nation's fate may depend on sound understandings aout Communist and Liberal thought processes. Don't you agree?

Yes. But I don't agree with the inference that communist/liberal thought processes will result in a fate worse than death for you.

TYWD

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 06:05 PM

Let me first point out that your initial level entrance into the economy probably had nothing to do with President Bush, the Republicans, or Democrats. Like most Americans you probably chose your job and occupation. Some of your peers may have chosen to attend college to prepare for a better economic situation later in life. Since we have no knowledge of the history of your life, we can only speculate why you are in the economic situation you are in. But I am relative sure part of the position has been due to your own choice more so than any President's action. You have been blessed to live in the land of opportunity. Can you think of any opportunities you chose to pass up? How did you become disabled? I don't really expect you to answer these questions to me but if your are going to criticize the American system, which has been built by many Presidents and members of Congress, you owe it to all of us an explanation as to how you did your best and the system sill failed you.

Many people are disable and economically challenged. A common statement I hear they say, I wished I had done this or that, gone to school, chosen a better job, etc. Most people know why they are in their particular situation. It seems only President Bush is responsible for you. How can that be?

As Liberals do, you are conditioned to quote from Liberal talking points. You are also trained to be outraged when your own political philosophy is explained to you. Your good at quoting from books. If you do not want to be associated with the Communist, research how Communist behave. You might be blessed with an epiphany. If your not willing to do this, you'll just have to dodge the rocks that old preacher throws into the pack of gods.

Oh, one other thing, the War on Terror, I did not know it was only in Afghanistan. With all your accurate way of putting research together, you ought to be a leader of Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary and Obama need your help in giving the rest of the country to China, a Communist country.

mkemse

03-04-2008, 06:08 PM

Again, I ask, what the fuck are you on about? As a poor ccountry preacher, maybe you couldn't afford the part of the logic lessons you attended that dealt with sticking to the point.

My "playhouse" wasn't shaken by your powers of persuasion, your profundity or perspicacity, but by simple puzzlement. I just didn't understand what that phrase (the one I'd quoted) meant. But I've sussed it now so don't bother explaining.

Meanwhile, I'm happy for you to attack liberalism (and socia1ism and communism if you want to. I doubt you'd criticise right wing extremists, but I'm happy for you to do that too.) That's what makes these threads so much fun! However, unless you're George Bush in disguise, my last post was not an attack on you, but a repudiation of what you had said.

The quotation you seem to refer to were your very own words, so I cannot see how you can blame me for using "fear tactics". Look to yourself for that.

But tell me, what makes you think that the right wing has the monopoly on logic and of dispassionate reasoning? In what way are they denied to liberals and communists? Was not Das Kapital an eminently reasoned work?

Thank you for giving me the Blue Dog Democrats: I shall always treasure them. What do I do with them?

Why is it more likely that a liberal would lie to me than a conservative? My experience of politcians of every hue is that they lie like dogs, or contort the truth so they can say they didn't lie. From Mussolini on the right to Stalin on the left, they are ALL liars. Even the ones in the middle - Nixon, Bush, Thatcher, Blair, cared more for power than for honest-to-God truth. Nixon lied about Watergate, Thatcher about the Belgrano, Bush about WMD's and Saddam's giving aid and succour to bin Laden, Blair about the same thing. Of course they told other lies too, but those are the big ones.

Your soldiers and my soldiers have not died in defence of freedom. If you believe that, you've swallowed another politician's lie. Tell me how Saddam threatened US freedom, or British freedom. Those soldiers died because Bush and Blair were afraid Iraq would come under Russian of Chinese influence - and then where would the oil go? So they put a stop to that before it started, by invading a country that presented no threat and had made no attempt to attack America or Britain. They were never interested in relieving the Iraqi people from the tyranny they had been under - that was another lie. After the invasion, the country collapsed into pure anarchy, and in between killing each other, the Iraqi's amused themselves by taking pot shots at the occupying forces.

Yes. But I don't agree with the inference that communist/liberal thought processes will result in a fate worse than death for you.

TYWD

"Again, I ask, what the fuck are you"
Who is this remark directected at or to??

Torq

03-04-2008, 06:29 PM

OK, GENTLEMEN,,,,ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now folks can see why politics and religion are NOT ALLOWED to be dicussed in chat.

Politics just llike religion are always "HOT" topics due to opinions!!!!

This thread has deteriorated into "near FLAMING opinions" and ENOUGH !!!!!

Consider this a "cease and desist" ORDER !!!!!

Lets move on

Thank You

Be Well
T

ps: This is not a request option,, move on or out !!!

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 06:55 PM

ThisWeWillDo

Since you seem to have a limited understanding of Liberalism, Communism, and S****ism and anything colored Bush, I will keep to the subject and try to repudiate some of the ideas you have that are dangerous to yourself and the country.

"Why is it more likely that a liberal would lie to me than a conservative?" Good question. The Communist believe it is correct to lie if it serves the purpose of Communism. I've noticed Liberals do this all the time. When Obama made up that cock and bull story about the soldier telling him that they had to take weapons from the Telliban in order to have weapons with which to fight, the news man in NBC said that although the event never really happen, it was alright since Obama was trying to tell a truth. Not even you can believe bull shit like that, or maybe you can.

You ask:"But tell me, what makes you think that the right wing has the monopoly on logic and of dispassionate reasoning?"

By Right Wing, you are referring to Conservatives I suppose. The logic of the Liberal and Communist is called dielectave. Obama's lie is one example. Another example is the Dan Rather lie on CBS. It did not matter that what he said was untrue. It was that Mr. Rather was trying to explain, a truth about President Bushl In grade school you probably heard the teacher refer to thesis-anti thesis- synthesis. the teacher was talking about the Communist logic system.

The Right Wing logic is the logic of Aristotle based on correct reference of a factual truth and reflected to another factual truth. It is the logic Western Civilization with the scientific method. I have tried to explain this to you in terms that you could understand. Try reading a little bit for a clearer explanation. If you don't get that Liberal conditioning process out of your head, you'll never fully understand Conservative politics.

After you practice thinking using Aristotelian logic as it is called, all those foolish accusations about oil, lies, and the big ones as you call them, will seem small issues compared the Liberal Policy of telling lies. I know there are times that Conservatives have lied but when they lie they violate their own ethics: but, when a Liberal or communist lies, he is following policy and his ethical code.

Torq

03-04-2008, 07:00 PM

mkemse

03-04-2008, 07:26 PM

Fini :)

wmrs2

03-04-2008, 08:01 PM

OK MAYBE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WORD ENOUGH,,, LETS TRY AGAIN ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GENTLEMEN OPINIONS ABOUT THE SUBJECT ARE FINE OPINIONS ABOUT OTHERS IS NOT

FINAL WARNING ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOVE ON,,THANK YOU!
Be Well
T

Thank you for stepping in. I will obey your order. Name calling in debate is not appropriate. I posted my last comment on the subject before I read your first warning to us. I apologies.

The word "fuck" was directed towards me. I ignored it. If my response was in violation of the debate policy, I would welcome further correction from you so as to give care that it doesn't occur again. If I find I can not comply with your wishes, I will not participate in the forum discussions although I enjoy them very much. Send private message if possible.

Thank you,
wmrs2

mkemse

03-04-2008, 08:11 PM

[QUOTE=wmrs2;573261]Thank you for stepping in. I will obey your order. Name calling in debate is not appropriate. I posted my last comment on the subject before I read your first warning to us. I apologies.

The word "fuck" was directed towards me. I ignored it. If my response was in violation of the debate policy, I would welcome further correction from you so as to give care that it doesn't occur again. If I find I can not comply with your wishes, I will not participate in the forum discussions although I enjoy them very much. Send private message if possible.

Thank you,
wmrs2[/QUOTEi
i also am done with this thread
and my sincerest apologies to ANYONE who i may have insulted, if i did it was 1000% unitentional

:wave:

ThisYouWillDo

03-05-2008, 04:41 AM

I choose to move on (to RevLeft.com where it's cool to be a prole). Hey, it's just another kind of deviation after all.