Can anyone believe/support Bush anymore?

[jku]

Unless you're part of the 1% of greedy American plutocracy that paid $2000 to eat hotdogs with GW two weeks ago, then how can any hard working, honest, democracy loving American defend the actions of this Administration?

I don't get it?! They lied about NUCLEAR WAR, scared us, then admitted they lied - now they ask to forget it and vote 4 more years!

So there are no weapons - why did they go?
SIMPLE:
1. Bush re-election 2004
2. A BILLION DOLLARS a week in oil and weapons contracts for the military and oil industry types that can pay $2000 for a hotdog.

Our American soldiers died for the greed of wealthy corporations, what are we gonna do about it?!

I wrote this a long time ago here and got some flak for it - but it was prescient:
"If I was smart, I would master the Republican shtick, and get a job doing press for the GOP. It's really easy - focus congressional investigations on blow jobs and FORGET that 150 soldiers died for Bush's re-election campaign. How
can Congressional Republicans dismiss an investigation into the WMDs as "politics"!? People died to supposedly protect our country from those weapons that we know now didn't exist! Shouldn'twe give that the highest scrutiny!?"

[seren1411]

I may just tear out my hair. I've just been reading a poll conducted on the website of Mark Thomas (British comedian/satirist and anti-war activist) over whether George Bush will win the 2004 elections - the results so far: 38% 'yes', 31% 'no', 32% 'doesn't matter'.

Aargh!

How can it not matter to these people? I know the site is British and it's an American Presidential issue, but given that it would require a team of dedicated surgeons and a great deal of labour to extricate Blair from where he's wormed himself up into Bush's backside surely you'd think my compatriots could manage to stir themselves from apathy?

jku, if you haven't seen it before you might like Mark Thomas's website - this guy's the one who organised a 'white ribbon' anti-war campaign and used the proceeds in an attempt to take legal action against Blair for involving us in an illegal war.

www.mtcp.co.uk (http://www.mtcp.co.uk)

[pisces2473]

As an American, it really bothers me that so many people think that this George Bush is doing a good job. It bothers me so much that I can't really think about it, because I'm afraid I'll turn into a blabbering idiot (haha, like GW himself!) who makes no sense. I voted for Gore and I'm sorry he lost. I don't agree with Bush's social policies and those are key issues for me.

It's just that the majority of Americans are more conservative and want strong "leadership" even if that means restricting our civil rights...then you've got the Bible Belt praising the fact that GW is a born-again Christian (nothing agains BAC's!)--I don't really see how religion plays a part in who you vote for and why. A woman at my office is very smart, 2 masters from Yale, etc...and she voted for GW because he's a born-again Christian. I think there are a lot of skeletons in GW's closets and it's really scary that HE is our leader.

[Benwa]

You know who I voted for in the last election. Myself! Thats no joke either. Myself as pres and my younger brother as vice. Wrote it in and everything. I told people and they thought I was crazy and wasn't taking it seriously. I did it because i have the full capacity to govern myself and I find my family to be a trustworthy ally.

Religion and gov't go so well together because they are similar beasts. Their main objective is to control people. Look at the very first story in the bible, Adam and Eve. According to that story what is the most grievously, sinful awful things people can do? Disobey! When a group of leaders comes at you with a story like that, be highly suspect. Always obey authority or be cast down to live a life of misery and torment. If you don't do the ten things he tells you, you will be sent to a place of fire, burning sulfur and scorching lava. Where you will spend eternity eating feces, drinking molten lead, and be sodamized by demons. The father will make you suffer eternally for disobedience. Hey, but he loves you! Gimme a break.

Why does america love W? Because he's giving them the illusion they are being looked after. The illusion of safety. Strip searches at the airport, "for your safety". More prisons and police "for your safety". Squashing other countries because there's some bad people who live in them, "for your safety". But safety is an abstract, impossible to obtain. To think that these things make you safe is ridiculous and honestly I think less of people who think that these things help. In most cases, these things make living more dangerous. Fighting other countries creates more enemies, more prisons mean we need to ruin more lives by punishment (creating more criminals). We are tricked into thinking survival is much harsher than it actually is. Who tricks us? The buttholes in charge! Why? Because they need a damn job!

[seren1411]

As for believing in/trusting government figures, here's a really disturbing news item from the UK.

We've recently been through a press scandal, following an allegation that the government (and in particular the PM's spin doctor of choice, Alistair Campbell) had "sexed up" dossiers relating to the alleged existence of WMD in Iraq. The scandal involved some atypically vitriolic infighting between the govt and the BBC (state-administered broadcasting organisation).

The latest twist: a body believed to be that of the man responsible for instigating the allegations that the government spiced up its reports with regard to Iraq's weapons capabilities, Dr David Kelly, was found today in the woods near Kelly's Oxfordshire home.

[jku]

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist goon - but who makes money as this war costs American taxpayers $1 BILLION a week? Could there be a link between the death of this professor and the war?
Who was he a threat to?

The GOP Spin Machine is so brilliant in the US. They decided to dismiss charges that the WMD issue is important as "politics," and had many major Republican figures on all the TV shows repeating the mantra - "It's just politics"

NO,it's not. People died for the money you made.
Off the AP Wire now, this is what Blair faced in Japan. I like Blair as a person, but what is he doing to himself and the people of the UK?
Where will this path lead?

"At a tense press conference in Hakone, Japan alongside Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Blair stood stony-faced, when a
journalist asked if he had "blood on your hands" and would
resign. He said nothing before shaking hands with Koizumi to end
the press conference."

[pisces2473]

Where are we getting this $1 billion a week from? Who's lending us the money? What are we borrowing against--social security? Fantastic. I might as well just mail my paycheck to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now because I'm not going to get it back when I'm older.

We have a huge deficit already--I can't foresee anything helping to repair it. And they say war is good for economies? Maybe in WWII, but I doubt now.

[Benwa]

I heard an interesting thing about deficit an american forefather had. I think it was Jefferson, it doesn't matter, I'm sure it was some obsenely rich cracker with slaves. (I'm a honky by the way, incase anyone wonders if my distaste for rich crackers is racially motivated) His theory was that a large debt is good because it makes it harder for the people to realize they don't need you as much as you need them. Keep em in debt, keep em scared.

I saw on the news (I know its a horrible place to get info) that in 2001 the country actually had a surplus earning. And since W started working his making we are back in the red again. Republicans look at the number and say it isn't that bad, but if you tak into account we were ahead of the game, its a big loss.

I detest most Rulers, but Clinton obviously didn't do too badly if we made a surplus. Another good thing about Bill is he had his finger on the pulse of minority issues. Recently my city had a little problem. the police had this annoying habit of shooting black people.. Anyway a riot erupted after one to many unarmed black men was shot. so bill offers to come in and try to help, which seems like one of the few great ideas to come from a gov't official. But the city, busy giving fallacio (spelling?) to W decided to decline. Who did they pick to help? Billy Graham! Jesus will help. the invisible daddy will come down from heaven and make all those mean police and those silly blacks get along. I swear, sometimes I want to go take a dump on the Mayor's porch.

[thejoesays]

Do you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein would unilaterally disarm and not tell anybody about it? I for one don't. We have only been able to look for these things for the past month and everyone is expecting immediate and definate results. Besides, the circumstantial evidence shows that Iraqi did have WMD's. For example, the Iraqi army had atropeen(sp) injectors to counter the effects of nerve gas. I wonder which side in this battle would use nerve gas? Hmm.,

Also, we should be thankful for GWB because of the fact that he has helped to get the economy growing again from a recession started by the Clinton Administration

[lostindc]

I am beginning to feel sorry for PM Blair. He and the British gov't have been probably the most supportive ally the US has had over the past several years. They are the only country to send any sizable army to support the US campaign in Iraq and have stood behind the US at risk of alienating the rest of europe and jeopardizing their politcal careers.

So what does the US administration give them in return?

1. Refusal to extradite British citizens currently being held indefinately as enemy combatents, while the US gives its own citizens captured in afagainistan the right to a civil trial. Talking about a lack of trust in your ally. . .

2. The Bush Administration is now blaming the BRITISH for falty intelligence that resulted in erroneous statements being placed in the president's state of the union speech.

We have to treat our allies better than this . . .

[Benwa]

To suggest the US wouldn't use nerve agents or other chem/bio weapons is a little silly. We developed most of these things, we've produced these things in sizeable number, we have many high tech systems for delivery, all of our soldiers are trained in protection (with gear a far cry better than a simply atropine shot). It would be used in conjunction with information warfare to cover it up. The public would never, ever, ever see any evidence of it. similar things were done in Vietnam, only recently found out. Our guys deliberately used chem weapons to destroy South Vietnamese rice crops, sending their economy and food supply into a crisis. Of course we were there to "save the day", making them dependant on us.

As for not finding WMD yet, After desert storm the UN inspections destroyed around 90-95% of their WMD capability. I'm sure, buried in some sand dune somewhere theres a baddie missile. But hardly the threat it was made out to be. I'd be willing to bet there are private american citizens with more WMD than Hussein had.

I'm sorry the british are getting screwed, but they are in a long list of people our rulers screwed. They backed the wrong horse, which is hardly a consolation. Just like more and more american public are realizing they were sold a bill of goods. I think its annoying how the news chimes in about more soldiers being killed in guerrilla attacks and how bad it is for W's approval rating. I don't give a f*ck about his approval rating. The families of the soldiers don't give a f*ck about his approval rating. I'm tired of hearing how bad the new war developments are for Bush. Oh, poor president sad cause he might not get a second term like his daddy. Lets all shed a tear for poor poor pres's poor poor ratings. Thats one thing that really sucks about first term presidents, their too concerned with getting relected.

Bring our men and women home and let all the white collar, business criminal, yuppie crackers go over and fight for their own oil. They are getting the spoils of war anyway, pay your dues dammit. It would be tough for em, I don't think theres a banana republic over there yet. And lets not forget the perils of negotiating a million dollar deal when your cell phone gets jammed with the desert sand. Then theres the schrapnel ripping through your Lexus, which by the way really hurts the resale value. If your getting the spoils, you should pay your dues, thats all I'm saying. Our soldiers are going to come home and get hosed, just like they always have.

[thejoesays]

To suggest that the US would use Chemical weapons and then try to hide it with hundreds and hundreds of unfriendly journalists, including those from our own liberal news media, just waiting to show up GWB is laughable. Just think about it. Yes, we do have stockpiles of chemical weapons. But, it is against treaties that the US has signed and ratified to use those weapons. We have honored those treaties. Iraq has not. They gased Iranians and Kurds and probably US troops had they not done a terrific job of beating the enemy and giving freedom to the Iraqi people.

And to clarify about the UN inspectors destroying weapons in Iraq. Hans Blix himself said that there was no evidence that many of the weapons found during the last inspection regime were ever destroyed.

With all of this we should be thankful that an evil man like Saddam Hussein is gone and his tyranny ended. The Iraqi people will have freedom and capitalism instead of totalitarianism and socialism. Like all good things, it will take time to accomplish but it will be done in the end. If anybody should explain their actions in this conflict, it's France, Germany, and the UN. They were the ones that said basically that the Iraqi people should still be living in terror from Saddam's regime. At least to me, that pales in comparison to not being able to find WMD's after only a short amount of time.

[jku]

Hi THEJOE -

Now that truly honorable Republicans like Chuck Hagel are saying something suspicious is going on with Bush, this is obviously not "politics" as the Spin machine wants you to believe - its an issue with much more signifgance that will grow in the coming months as people our age die over there everyday.

The obviously liberal biased Wall Street Journal 7/18/03 had an article claiming that Iraq never had a weapons (or even a PROGRAM) after 1991, basically Hussein lied and allowed the world to assume he had weapons so he could not be attacked. The "Fear Factor" was much cheaper than actually making weapons. You don't think the Bush Administration was aware of this? Of course they were, but they need War to get re-elected - what else are they gonna run on? What has been their big success?

"They gased Iranians and Kurds and probably US troops had they not done a terrific job of beating the enemy and giving freedom to the Iraqi people."

This is ridiculous! The Iranians and Kurds were gassed with the blessings of Reagan and Bush 41.
Remember the 80s when the Iranians were the "enemy"? Hussein was "our buddy." LOOK at this picture for the love of God!:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/&h=168&w=220&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHUSSEIN%2BRUMSFELD%26svnum%3D10%26hl% 3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

And the Kurds/Northern Alliance? Bush 41 told them to fight Hussein and America will support them.
At the last minute Bush pulled out support and they were killed on the street. The reason? Former officials now say they knew Hussein, but they didn't know the Kurds. Better to get the PR move and allow the Kurds to die than actually get Hussein out.

"Blix himself said that there was no evidence that many of the weapons found during the last inspection regime were ever destroyed."

Again, look at the facts. The weapons for the most part didn't exist. What weapons remained were destroyed under inspections through the 90s. Hussein created the "phantom threat" as an offensive move.

The Bush/Cheney Administration is corrupt. Seeking oil like crack addicts, with no REAL exploration of alternative energy. They sell lies to us like Pepsi sells sugar-water.

Check these two articles as well. "The truth is out there." It's time to WAKE UP and make sure we get these guys out of office in 2004.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2001799
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb

[pisces2473]

Jku--

You're fantastic! I hope you are volunteering for Kerry's campaign!

[jku]

You bet I am - Kerry ACTUALLY fought in a War, he was a Senator while Bush was getting jobs through his Dad on a variety of corporate boards that he now pays allegiance to. Any young person who still believes in what America truly stands for will support Kerry as well.

Bush is not a real Republican in the tradition of Eisenower, or even NIXON! These guys have no allegiance to any country, only to money and power.

Look how they desperately protect King Faisel and the Saudi Royal Family! They black out 28 pages dealing with Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 report, knowing 15 of 19 of the 9/11 HIJACKERS were from Saudi!! Bush had the KING over to his ranch in Texas for God sakes!!

Is that American? I think not!

[seren1411]

I have to agree with pisces. Go get 'em jku!

[pisces2473]

Why Kerry? Why not any of the other Democratic runners (well, not Al Sharpton--he's not legit enough and I've never heard of Dennis Kucinich)? I like a lot of Kerry's views, but I'm wondering what's the deal with the other 6? BTW--too many candidates--I'm hoping some drop out before Boston.

Here's what I want:

health care for all people

women's rights (on ALL levels, if you will)

upholding of our civil rights for all

an end to the lies and bullshit we've been led to believe

an end to warring with other nations when we don't belong

our taxes to actually do something for us, not just used to pay old debts incurred by predecessors

[jku]

Kerry is the only Democrat the GOP Machine is afraid of. They can't get him on sex, drugs, patriotism - he's a veteran, a Senator, and he grew up broke. Dean and Kucinich have a lot of great points, but they'll get destroyed and basically give the election to Bush. Karl Rove said he's a big fan of Dean. Enough said.

The next election is the most important in our generation. This country is in such a fragile state. The only reason Bush has even looked at certain issues is to appear "reasonable" enough for 2004 voters. But with his re-election, this country will fail economically as foreign countries stop investing in America - and stop buying bonds to secure our debt. Jobs will continue to be sent overseas. Unions will lose strength. Public education, social security, national parks, the environment, will be gutted. We will be the first generation to do WORSE than our parents. In the long term, there will be the ultra-rich and ultra-broke - the middle class will be a marginal force.
I look at this stuff daily. No doubt in my mind as to what these guys are up to. "Helping fellow man" is not in their vocab.

If they did try and bust Kerry for smoking pot like they did with Clinton, then all that would need to happen is a look into Bush's drug history prior to 1973 (he asked people not to look at his drug use prior to that year). Not only was a Bush an alcoholic with more than two DUIs, he used cocaine as well.

Wow, with those kind of credentials, maybe the GOP could run Tommy Lee and Vince Neil for the White House in 2008?

Also, friends, please check out these websites and support Kerry:
Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/)

Democrats.com (http://www.democrats.com)

Democratic Forum on Compuserve - (http://forums.compuserve.com/gvforums/default.asp?SRV=Democratic)

Bartcop Forum - (http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=2)

Young Democrats of America - Discussion List
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yda-discuss/)
US Democrat Network - (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USDemocrat/)
NY Times Web Forum - The 2004 Presidential Election
(http://forums.nytimes.com)

Slate.com (http://bbs.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=pol)

[thejoesays]

Let's assume for a moment that Iraq didn't have WMD's after 1991. Then the lie doesn't originate with GWB, but with Bill Clinton (who attacked Iraq after they kicked the original inspectors out saying he was going "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs"), the United Nations (who said their inspectors found WMD's and then couldn't account for their destuction http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm), the Democrats in Congress (who sent a letter to Bill Clinton asking him to eliminate Saddam because of his WMD as well as other reasons with Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd saying that the "the (Clinton) administration needs to act sooner rather than later"), as well as a host of others.

So if their aren't any WMD's, then the conspiricy is far deeper then anybody imagined.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, we supported the lesser of two evils at the time. You have to remember this was during the Cold War when the enemy was the USSR and we needed allies against the evils of communism. As for the Kurds, we had to weigh the interests of our ally Turkey, which also has alot of Kurds in it and was worried that they would try to declare indepence from it and fight the Turks. Now, I'm not saying what the US did in terms of that war and the Kurds was right, I'm saying the issue is more complicated than what has been said.

The same is true for Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is the only thing holding that country together. If the House of Saud fall, the Arabian Peninsula would ignite in civil war and possibliy produce more people we probably wouldn't like.

As for Bush and Cheney only wanting oil, let me ask this one simple question. If all we wanted in Iraq was the oil, then why didn't we take the oil in the first Gulf War?

Also, I don't believe the GWB is only out for power. I truely believe that Bush believes we are doing good and believe that it's America's role in the world to help in the cause of freedom. I surely believe we have done that in Iraq. Hopefully, the entire middle east region will look at a liberated, democratic, and free Iraq and try to emulate it. Already, Iran looks like they will overthrow the dictators there. Hopefully other countries will follow their lead.

If you want to find an American president whose only goal was power, you need look no further than William Jefferson Clinton.

Lastly, I will agree with jku by saying that Bush isn't a Republican in the Eisenhower and Nixon mold. Thank God. He's a Republican of the Reagan mold.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by thejoesays
Lastly, I will agree with jku by saying that Bush isn't a Republican in the Eisenhower and Nixon mold. Thank God. He's a Republican of the Reagan mold.

You are happy he's a Reaganite? Hello? Reagan is the guy who got us into the mess that Clinton got us out of, bringing us out of a deficit. Ever heard of Reaganomics? Tax and spend? The guy taxed everyone to death, and put it towards the defense industry. People were suffering--hungry, no health care, etc. He didn't care about social services for anyone. Who followed him? Bush the elder--fantastic--then W sat around and watched Daddy and said, "When I grow up, I'm gonna be President too." (he was in his early 40s at this time, mind you)

Clinton might have been about power, but at least he cared about our citizens and wanted to make things better. He lied under oath, yes, that wasn't right, but people have said that if he could run again, they would vote for him.

And about Kerry smoking pot? So did a lot of our leaders of the baby boom era. Now doing cocaine and being arrested for that and DWI is ANOTHER story altogether. Oh and shall we mention that W has never really held a "real" job?

[thejoesays]

Yes, I am happy he's a Reaganite. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the history of this country and, as a result of a news media hostile to him, the most misunderstood. For example, you say that Regan did tax and spend Reaganomics and taxed everyone to death. This is most certainly false. The main tenent of Supply-side economics was that taxes were too HIGH. When Reagan became president in 1981 the highest marginal tax rate was (and I maybe a little off on this) 70%. Reagan lowered it to about 30%.

Now most people would think that this would create the deficits in the eightes. They would be wrong. What happened was the government revenues increased dramatically. Supply-side worked.

However, the real reason we had deficits in the '80's was the Democrats. They spend $2 for every extra $1 that came into the federal tresury.

Another thing that worked was this increase in defense spending that helped to bring the USSR to it's knees and end communism in Russia.

As for Reagan not caring about social services, that also isn't true. Reagan viewed the current set up of government social service programs as causing more people to be poor. In essence, government was being a friend of poverty disguising itself as a friend of the poor.

For health care, I can't vouch for Reagan there since I don't know too much about his view there except for he support the system of private health care. But, I can say that the biggest obsticale to more people getting health care coverage is the Democrats. Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed almost 60% of those who are currently uninsured to get health care coverage that the Republican congress passed.

[seren1411]

Reagan. Somewhat demented, appallingly bad actor. A guy whose defense policy is named after the work of George Lucas. Seriously?

As for cannabis use, quite apart from the fact that in the UK 44% of 16 to 29 year olds will ADMIT to having tried pot (so Kerry is hardly an isolated figure), a valid, vibrant and significant pot-based proportion of the economy has been observed:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,887200,00.ntml (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,887200,00.html)

Governments sneering at this essentially drug-related source of revenue? I think not.

[pisces2473]

Joe,

He was NOT the greatest president. I can think of SOOOO many more (TR, FDR, JFK, etc)

You said--"Another thing that worked was this increase in defense spending that helped to bring the USSR to it's knees and end communism in Russia."

So what? They had their system, we had ours. Now I don't agree with Soviet communism, but in the abstract, it wouldn't be too bad. That's if you go with the Marxist view. Lenin and Trotsky bastardized Marx's theory and that's what ended up being in Eastern Europe and the USSR. The only reason we got involved with the defense spending is because they were a threat with nuclear warfare BUT also because they were a capitalist nation waiting to happen! Don't you know that all the corporations (Coca-Cola, McDonald's, etc) were waiting to strike in the Soviet Union while the iron was hot???

[thejoesays]

It's interesting you mention Kennedy because he used the same tax policy as Reagan did.

About Communism, while it is true that they had their system and we had ours, their system wanted to destroy ours. The best example of this is Nikita Kruschev's(sp) famous statement of "we will bury them."

As for the USSR not being truely communist, Marx said that Communism could be condensed down to one statement: The abolition of private property. As I recall, that did occur. The USSR owned all land and the means of all production. They also had another trait of communist states, a huge graduated income tax.

I do agree that Russia was a capitalist state waiting to happen. They just needed to get rid of communism. Once people got a taste of freedom and capitalism, they could never go back. Our increase in defense spending only spead up process of the demise of the Soviet state by making the already faulty Soviet ecomony to spend more on defense.

Now Russia is an emerging democracy that, while shaky at times, has a very bright future. They even have a low flat income tax that has been extremely benifical to Russia. Now if only we could have a flat tax in the United States.

[jku]

Arguments about tax burdens, debates about communism - tedious and off the point, but after WW2 until around 1973 a family could survive on a single income. Things done changed. Communism is a theory now. It doesn't really exist.
Capitalism/democracy works when there is a government to provide a check and balance - but when the GOVERNMENT is the CORPORATION and vice-versa, that's what Mussolini defined as facism. Who would know better?

TheJoe is right - Clinton's policy on Iraq was not scrutinized enough. Sanctions on Iraq caused thousands to die of starvation, the "No-Fly" Zone was ridiculous. If Clinton lifted sanctions and lended support the Iraqi people, they could have had their own uprising. They wouldn't need over 150+ dead soldiers to do it. So if Clinton's policy of remote bombing (mind you, not a single US casualty) could be called "stupid" - Bush's current policy is outright insane. Bush has ESCALATED the whole situation without proper evidence as to why we should have in the first place.

And if you are naive enough to think this 100% partisan (It's 20% partisan, 80% a real live issue of the integrity and reputation of the United States), then you're missing the big picture.

I just have one question for TheJoe then - what if Clinton went into a country (nation building) that had nothing to do with 9/11, lied at a State of the Union speech, sent questionable intelligence to Congress and gained their support, had basically zero support from the UN and WORLD, and as a non-veteran was on watch as over 150 soldiers died?

Do you think the Republican attacks at that point would be construed as mere "politics"? I can assure, I at least, would be equally outraged.

And by the way, what is wrong with "politics" aka debate, isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do?
What's the alternative to "politics"?
Isn't it WAR?

[thejoesays]

Sanctions in Iraq did not cause starvation amoung the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein was the cause. US soliders found in several of his Presidential Palaces UNICEF boxes that were to go to the Iraqi people. In essence, he took the money earmarked for the people and spent it on himself. If there were no sanctions, I still believe that the people would have been starving because Saddam would have spent the money on weapons.

Clinton's policy of remote bombig was "stupid" only because it wasn't truely effective. The Saddam regime recovered and went on it way tortureing and killing people. There was also that little thing about impeachment taking place at the same time.

Bush's policy was far and away beter than Clinton's because it was truely effective. Saddam is gone, a threat to the United States is gone, the people are free, all that's left to help the Iraqi people to get the ball rolling. It won't be easy but I'm confindent that it can be done.

In regards to your question jku, I can tell you what Republicans would do in that situation because it actually happened in the Clinton Administration. Although this had the support of the UN and the World, this engagement was not in the national interest (what you called nothing to do with 9/11), Clinton not only lied to Congress about it but to the American people in a televised speech, and, of course, was a non-verteran. I'm speaking of our engagment in Bosnia and Kosovo. This deployment clearly wasn't in the national interest. Even the New York Times said that this was the first purely eggalitarian deployment by the US since WWII. The lie of course was the "one-year deployment" of our troops. I've lost track of how many years we are into our one-year deployment. Had the Iraqi war been handled in such a way, we wouldn't be taking about deaths in the hundreds but deaths in the thousands.

So what was the Republican reaction? Some said that wasn't in the national interest, some stayed silent, all supported the troops in their mission.

My question for you jku is you talk about proper evidence for war. I'm curious, what would you consider proper evidence.

[jku]

TheJoe - one thing I can say is that you do a great job of listing the talking points provided by the Administration. I'm guilty too. But lets look at this situation with some objectivity, clarity, and original thought.

"Clinton's policy of remote bombig was "stupid" only because it wasn't truely effective. The Saddam regime recovered and went on it way tortureing and killing people. There was also that little thing about impeachment taking place at the same time."

How could Clinton's policy be called anything but effective? It was strict and rigid containment of a potential threat. What is wrong with containment? We're doing it with Castro. We did it for decades with the USSR. It's impossible to fight a war everywhere in the world. Didn't the GOP say that to Clinton?

And what was IMPEACHMENT?! A trial on whether a guy lied about getting a blowjob!? In that case, I should have been impeached in the 7th grade. ;)
I'm not defending what he did, but c'mon - it was sex - NOT National Security. The polls subsequent to that ridiculous impeachment proved it.

And how did Hussein recover? Every American has a little bit of Iraq in their gas tanks - the oil companies found ways around the oil embargo. American companies like Halliburton (led by Cheney at the time) even REBUILT Iraq's oil infrastructure!

This is insane!? Why doesn't America see this!? The same guys that profit from war are running it NOW!

How can anyone compare Bosnia to what is happening now!? We had widespread GLOBAL support via the UN.
It was minor distraction. We're in all out war with guerillas TODAY.

Just remember that the recent Budget deficit figure of $420 BILLION doesn't even include the cost of Iraq which we're paying for 100% - Bush 41 only paid for 15% of Gulf War 1.

What do I want to see to justify this war? Simple.
Weapons that could have destryoed American interests or the UK in under 45 minutes. An imminent threat - I'm talking today, now, or in the next few hours. Not some PROGRAM from 1991 buried in a backyard. Not empty trailers.
REAL DEAL Weapons that can kill millions of people.

Show me that and I'll admit I'm wrong. I'll run the GOP campaign in San Francisco. I'll even eat my shoe like Tucker Carlson.

Please understand I'm a fair minded person. Not a left wing granola burn-SUVs psycho. I actually hate these boring topics. I'd rather discuss JLO's pink diamond.

But I ferevently feel the United States is under threat by the goals of this Administration. They MUST be defeated.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by jku

And what was IMPEACHMENT?! A trial on whether a guy lied about getting a blowjob!? In that case, I should have been impeached in the 7th grade. ;)

Please understand I'm a fair minded person. Not a left wing granola burn-SUVs psycho. I actually hate these boring topics. I'd rather discuss JLO's pink diamond.

But I ferevently feel the United States is under threat by the goals of this Administration. They MUST be defeated.


You dawg ;)

I get wicked aggravated talking about these things because there's really no point. Politicians believe what they want and leave the rest of us in the dust.

Yes, this administration is up to no good!

[thejoesays]

No talking points here, just some good old fashioned common sense. Commtainment works only with a rational opponent. I think we can both agree that Saddam is not a rational person. It also only works when everybody participates. For example, it was not Halibertan that had rebuilt Iraqi oil fields. It was the French and the Germans who did. That's why they were so opposed to the war. They didn't want their stuff blown up. In these cases containment is no substitute for victory.

As for impeachment, Bill Clinton lied under oath. It doesn't matter about what, he lied under oath. That's a felony, most people go to jail for felonys.

Now for weapons that could kill millions of people, Iraqi had not accounted for the destruction of 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Don't take my word for it. This information comes directly from the UN.

[jku]

No less than 60 Minutes has done extensive investigations into Halliburton aka Kellog Brown & Root, Iraq and this administration. The corruption is so overt in some cases, an analyst remarked "we can't tell where the government ends and the corporation begins. It's a revolving door."

The questions are floating around, and they will be answered - if there was no AlQueda link, no threat of WMDs, no nuclear capabilities - why did we go in? Of course Bush's thugs will say: "to free the Iraqi people of an evil dictator" - c'mon! who can SERIOUSLY believe that!?
Anyone who looks at this thing with any objectivity can see its all about the Re-election campaign for 2004 and a LIMITLESS supply of AMERICAN taxpayer funded contracts.

Reuters report:
"At the same time, the company's oilfield services business, which is second only to Schlumberger Ltd., is likely to supply most of the heavy equipment to fight fires that Iraqi forces could set to oil wells and oil fields, as they did in Kuwait during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And should the U.S. emerge victorious, Halliburton -- which develops oil fields and drills for oil all over the world -- has the connections and businesses to play a major role in rebuilding Iraq and ramping the nation's oil production capacity back up to pre-1991 Persian Gulf War levels."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2003/0323business.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html

Do you really believe the anti-French/German propaganda? Halliburton makes billions off American taxpayers then points the finger and wrap themselves in the flag. Pathetic.

In re to the amount of poison they had - there were a variety of articles that detailed this subject in the Fall 2002. Basically the Administration was so desperate to go to war, they took the WORST CASE scenario and totally ignored the RECCOMENDATIONS that Iraq was a mild to moderate threat, North Korea, and for GODSAKES Saudi Arabia pose greater harm to America.

Don't worry. History will look back on this time and point out the overt corruption and graft of this war. It isn't the first time either. Look at McKinley's Spanish-American War, look at Kennedy's insane "hopes" about Vietnam. These corrupt bastards make me sick. Making profit off young people's blood.

[thejoesays]

First off I don't consider myself a thug, more like a stuffed animal of common sense, cuddly and squishy. So, yes, I do believe the Administration when it said that we are freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator. Did you hear and see some of the things this man did. He was truely evil and I'm very glad to see him go and I'm glad to see that Iraq is on the way to become the second actual democracy in the middle east behind Israel. If this was truely about politics, this war would have been started in October of 2002, before the midterm elections. In all honesty that probably would have been better for our troops because it would have alowed less time for Saddam to build a defense to our troops. We might not even be talking about 150 people dead but alot less.

I also believe the French and German facts about them having signifcant interests in Iraq. It is a fact that France helped with the oil infrastructure in Iraq. It is a fact that France helped build a nuclear power plant that was destroyed by Israel because it probably would have been used to get nuclear material for a bomb.

Speaking of propaganda, do you honestly believe that Bush was so blood thirsty so as to send people off to war. C'mon this was the guy that didn't want to do nation building. But, history thrust upon this man an opportunity to destory international terrorism and he took it. In the process, we are giving the greatest gift we can give, freedom and democracy. Afgahnistan is free now and the terrorists there have been routed. Iraq is free now and now has been prevented from ever using their WMD's and nuclear capability, which was a very short time away from being realized according to a Iraqi defector referred to as Saddam's bombmaker, to destory an major city.

History will judge George W. Bush. Thank god for the internet because the history will be a little more accurate than it would be with just the extremist liberal news media. You talk about Vietnam, who is general viewed by history as to blame for Vietnam? Richard Nixon, despite the fact he basically ended it. Johnson and Kennedy get away unscathed.

[jku]

You're right that Saddam was an evil man. But where was Rumsfeld and Cheney and when he was killing Kurds and Iranians? They used him as an ally and an enemy when it was politically convenient (and NEVER believe Bush is making any foreign policy decisions, the inside scoop is its all Cheney).

Have you wondered why FIVE soldiers have died in the past TWO days since we killed Uday and Qusay? Because they don't trust America, and why should they? The policy under Reagan and Bush 41 was insane, almost psychotic. Promising Kurds freedom and support, then bailing out and letting them die on the streets of BAGHDAD against this vicious thug, that his son subsequently (and conveniently) overthrows.

We as Americans have no grasp of the reality of the situation, an understanding of the history of the region, or our relationship with Iraq, and Iran for that matter.

In re to OIL - so you believe that France was in it for the oil, but Bush is just doing what is "right and moral?"

Well, with 94% of the Troops on the ground in Iraq being American, the war costing America $1 Billion a week, and we as American taxpayers being 100% responsible in paying for this war - I hope we can sleep in our cardboard boxes at night knowing that the Iraqi people are "free." Bush 41 was a smarter President, at that time we as Americans paid for 15% of the Gulf War. The cost of this war hasn't even been factored into the $400+ Billion deficit.
This is insane! Like the Internet boom - one day it will all bust.

Is Bush bloodthirsty? No. Is Cheney and the people who surround him? Yes. After reading a lot about Bush, his background, what he believes in - his skill is that the average person seems to be able to relate to him. Connect with him. The people behind the scenes recognize this and that is why they prop him up with money and "allegience." He's a patsy for the failed policies of this administration. The people who work under him will work again. When the insane policies of this administration are ripe, people will be outraged and wonder "what happened!?"
"Where was the media?!"
"They were owned by the rich and powerful that had something to gain, they were complicit!"
"But the media is a bunch of liberals!"

It's insane.