If you want to believe that he didn't lie that's OK, but you still have to look at his over all track record. If he isn't lying to suit his own ends then he's just been wrong about every thing so far. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really make any difference. The bottom line is he is one of the worst presidents we've had in a long long time, and I will grant you there have been some pretty bad examples over the years.

I'm surely not trying to defend him but just trying to keep the debate honest. I think he's been a disasterous president as he has overseen one of the greatest expansions of the federal government since the 30's.

ramses (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:07 am I disagree. That fucker is smart like a fox. He just doesn't have our interest in mind. For some reason, he wants to sell us out to the chinese and mexico. I'm sick of these new world order bullshit artists. It wouldn't be so bad if they ran on their NEW WORLD ORDER platform. Clinton was the same way, although he was more articulate.

HA!

Bush is DUMB, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... _id=480494)

DUMB, (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/some ... 93506.html)

Dumb...

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. SOURCE... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 805-3.html)

:-\

DUMB...

According to Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon, President Bush was referred to by Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka as "totally an asshole" (in English) during a state visit to the U.S. in June 2001. As reported in Japan’s Weekly Post, "There has never been a statesman in Japanese history who called a U.S. president ‘an asshole.’" SOURCE... (http://www.smokebox.net/archives/what/c ... n1202.html)

:-\

WATCH THE VIDEO! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w0GPtOivFMY& ... ed&search=)

:-\

GOD SAVE the QUEEN! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qF0MIB6U-jM& ... ed&search=)



...and, Presenting the TOP 10 George W. Bush moments. (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/721396/top_10_bush/)



For those who cannot spot the Bush bloopers, perhaps they would like to tell us what is FISHY about this "FISHY" (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/784443/ra ... l_catfish/) VIDEO?

Of course, as leaders go, IT COULD BE WORSE... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLvZIYSJ ... ed&search=)

!oh hell, as Taylor says, "...some days it just isn't worth chewing through the straps..." :shakemitk

LOL,,,,, Public speaking isn't his strong point. I think I'll refrain from further comment on Bushs intelligence! LOL!!!

Bush has been telling us for the past five years that we are making progress in Iraq. If Bush really believes that then he is delusional and IMOHO unfit to be in office. If he doesn't believe what he's telling the people, what does that make him?

I think Bush is essentially the same person he was when he was elected in 2000. So he either made very poor decision going into Iraq or he did it for some other reason than the series of justifications that were fed to the press in quick succession after WMD's proved to be nonexistent.

So, now we're dealing with Iran, and I'm watching this administration and CNN and Fox news all doing the same dance I watched them do in the lead up to the Iraq war..... It looks like an even bigger train wreck and it scares the hell out me.

So that's what I mean when I say it doesn't matter if he's a liar of an imbecile. A train wreck is a train wreck.

ramses (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:10 am I know most people have forgot what 9-11 felt like. Most americans felt like we couldn't sit around and wait while threats gathered on the horizon. Iraq wasn't a base for Al-queda but Hussain was grantin safe haven and training areas for anti-american terrrorist. That's a hell of a connection for me.

No.

No.

NO.

NO!

Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism or 9/11. Absolutely nothing.

Hussein was a complete and utter ruthless bastard. There's no way he would have wanted terrorist training bases in his country, trying to essentially undermine his power by teaching that the religious leaders were more important than he was.

If you're pulling rare and obscure links to 'prove' there were terrorists in Iraq, why not simply ask why the country 12 of the 19 hijackers were from wasn't invaded? Wouldn't that country (63%!!!!) be a more likely hotbed of terrorist training camps? A quick glance doesn't show a single one of those involved having been from Iraq. So why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded, taken to task, or even scolded? Why were Saudi nationals the only ones allowed in the air as the towers were coming down???

Purely and simply, Iraq was a distraction gone horribly wrong. The Twin Towers fell, a country (and a world) was pissed. Bin Laden and the Al'qaeda had to be taken out. They were (and are) based in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded by a large chunk of the UN in retaliation. And nothing happened. No Bin Laden. No real progress. Nothing to show day-to-day. People started getting restless. Saddam mouthed off one time too many, and it was decided that since the first Gulf War was so fast and easy, why not use the treaty violations to go in and finish the job? It'd keep people's minds off the lack of progress in Afghanistan, and the fact they hadn't yet found Bin Laden or quashed the Al-qaeda network. An easy win would prop people back up for the long slog Afghanistan was turning into.

The real fight never was in Iraq. It was, and still is, in Afghanistan. If the resources poured into Iraq had been sent where they belonged, we'd be a lot further ahead with fighting the real source of the 9/11 attacks.

I re-researched the connections that I had in mind when I made the last post. The evidence I had in mind is not reliable and has been rendered useless. I do hold this as evidence that I have an open mind and will admit when I'm wrong. I challenge others to do the same where appropriate. I will do further research on the subject but for the moment, I stand corrected. -Ramses

ramses (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:10 am Also, there was absolutely no reason Mr. Bush would have needed to cook a lie if he was just hell bent on invading Iraq. The violation of the articles of surrender of 1991 gave the US a legal right to resume the war the

Hussein started.

And had the US been the invading force in 1991, your argument might even make sense. The US was not the invading force, it was a US-organized coalition of UN forces.

The UN might have had legal authority to do something about Iraq or force its way in, but Bush was not interested in that.

And the "my dick is bigger than yours" contest that Hussein fought, well, cost him his life. The fucked-up macho-shit in the Middle East is close to the paranoid Texas horse-shit that Dubya's practicing, except that many of those in the Middle East are smarter and better at the game than Bush.

Do you really believe that idiot - Bush, I mean - would have waited to invade Iraq if (as you say) he believed he had the authority already in-hand?