Bush: History Will See Him As An Effective President!

[dapokerbum 0]

in my view, responsibility doesn't have a place in the discussion. at no point was anyone else concerted about making the responsible decision, so why does it fall to you to stick to a purchase price inflated by their shitty lending practices?if I were in your spot and liked my house/could afford the mortgage, I might stay too.

So basically everyone else is doing it (ie the banks, lenders, congress) then why can't I

[strategy 4]

So basically everyone else is doing it (ie the banks, lenders, congress) then why can't I

no, more like the fallout of what everyone else did negatively impacted you, so why should you take it in the shorts?

[Balloon guy 158]

no, more like the fallout of what everyone else did negatively impacted you, so why should you take it in the shorts?

<----taking it in the shorts...big time

[Balloon guy 158]

Iraq and WMDsHere are some quotes by people who later claimed Bush lied about WMDs;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

When confronted they tried to claim their intel was different and not as conclusive as the Presidents. This was refuted by the Silberman-Robb report led by a retired federal judge and former senator (D) Chuck Robb when they said the information that congress got in the National Intelligence Estimate was not markedly different from the Presidents.

[Balloon guy 158]

Bush and WMDs cont.Algore, who lost th election because he couldn't carry his home state, said this:"Bush intentionally misled the American people".."Spent prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" that led to "reckless, discretionary war against a nation that proposed no immediate threat to us whatsoever""He betrayed his country"But in September 2002, during the congressional debates on the Iraq war resolution, Gore told the audience:"Iraq's search for WMDs has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power...We know that Saddam has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

When confronted they tried to claim their intel was different and not as conclusive as the Presidents. This was refuted by the Silberman-Robb report led by a retired federal judge and former senator (D) Chuck Robb when they said the information that congress got in the National Intelligence Estimate was not markedly different from the Presidents.

Yes, we all know that the President's intel was crappy, incorrect, and convinced a bunch of Senators to vote to go to "war." One reason that the intel was so crappy was because Bush and his crew of ex-Reagan, ex-Bush Senior neo-conservatives pushed the army and intelligence organizations hard to get "justification" to go to war. What's the point? Some other people were as wrong as Bush was? Or that Clinton, with the same intel and conviction, was smart enough NOT to go to war with Iraq?

[BaseJester 1]

Iraq and WMDsHere are some quotes by people who later claimed Bush lied about WMDs;. . .

I think the proper conclusion is that the Democrats are also lying, not that Bush didn't.Ron Paul's Iraq SpeechFrom WikisourceJump to: navigation, search←Wikisource:Speeches Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraqby Ron Paul Delivered on 8 October 2002 on the floor of the House by Ron Paul, U.S. Representative for the state of Texas.Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."Some - even some in this body - have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former. President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymour Hersh’s article from Nov. 1993: Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh: The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war. Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with. There were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three…The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem…"Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Ron Paul's Iraq Speech

I don't always agree with the guy, but that was a pretty darn good speech. It's a bit scary that he said things so reasonable and convincing, and no one in congress even tried to listen to him.

[Balloon guy 158]

Bush and Katrina:5 days before landfall, Bush government officials asked the governor to declare an evacuation.3 days later the governor was still consulting with the legal department of her administration to decide if this would make the governor's office of being liable for any business lawsuits for loss of revenue. The last train to leave New Orleans was virtually empty. We all remember the pictures of unused school buses in flooded parking lots.FEMA was made available to 3 states, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Two of them took advantage of the help, and minimized the damage and results of Katrina. New Orleans and Louisiana did not.Bush pleaded with the governor to release the National Guard. She asked instead that Bush send in the US military. This is against the law, so Bush told her again to call up the guard. She vacillated for days, so the Bush White House did some fancy paperwork to declare Gen Honore' a National Guard commander in order to legally allow him to take over the national guard troops that the governor had failed to request for days after Katrina. Once he was on the ground things got done.Afterward the Bush administration had meetings to meet with the affected states, Mississippi had a clear mission, clear requests, (which were all met). New Orleans had no specific request, no leadership, and no plans.The people in neighboring states got federal relief money, cleaned up and moved forward in a matter of months. New Orleans took years.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Bush and Katrina:5 days before landfall, Bush government officials asked the governor to declare an evacuation.3 days later the governor was still consulting with the legal department of her administration to decide if this would make the governor's office of being liable for any business lawsuits for loss of revenue. The last train to leave New Orleans was virtually empty. We all remember the pictures of unused school buses in flooded parking lots.FEMA was made available to 3 states, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Two of them took advantage of the help, and minimized the damage and results of Katrina. New Orleans and Louisiana did not.Bush pleaded with the governor to release the National Guard. She asked instead that Bush send in the US military. This is against the law, so Bush told her again to call up the guard. She vacillated for days, so the Bush White House did some fancy paperwork to declare Gen Honore' a National Guard commander in order to legally allow him to take over the national guard troops that the governor had failed to request for days after Katrina. Once he was on the ground things got done.Afterward the Bush administration had meetings to meet with the affected states, Mississippi had a clear mission, clear requests, (which were all met). New Orleans had no specific request, no leadership, and no plans.The people in neighboring states got federal relief money, cleaned up and moved forward in a matter of months. New Orleans took years.

We know you're a bush nuthugger.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Bush and Katrina:

Okay, I'll say it. Bush gets a lot more blame for Katrina than he deserves. I mean, if Jesus and Chuck Norris were co-presidents, New Orleans would still have ended up in horrible shape. The city's built below sea level right next to the sea, for g_d's sake.

[hblask 1]

Okay, I'll say it. Bush gets a lot more blame for Katrina than he deserves. I mean, if Jesus and Chuck Norris were co-presidents, New Orleans would still have ended up in horrible shape. The city's built below sea level right next to the sea, for g_d's sake.

Because the levees have prevented the normal sediment buildup that made New Orleans possible in the first place, NO is slowly sinking into the sea. Within 100 years, it will be gone. I'd hate to be the president when that hurricane comes along that pushes it over the edge.Why aren't they just starting an orderly evacuation now?

[Balloon guy 158]

Because the levees have prevented the normal sediment buildup that made New Orleans possible in the first place, NO is slowly sinking into the sea. Within 100 years, it will be gone. I'd hate to be the president when that hurricane comes along that pushes it over the edge.Why aren't they just starting an orderly evacuation now?

Still lots of engineering funds to siphon off by he democrats in control before the next hurricane, that's why.

[mk 11]

Iraq and WMDsHere are some quotes by people who later claimed Bush lied about WMDs;

Oh cool, here are the only two quotes that matter:"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.linkAt 2:40 p.m. on September 11, 2001: With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans (on Iraq). The notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.link

[Balloon guy 158]

Those are the only two things that matter.That the left is able to judge the past decisions of Bush after they have plenty of time to see the results.Because let's face it, they never have nothing of value for anything current.So best to stick to the only thing you bring to the table, the ability to snipe at the heals of your betters.That and the selective memory needed to ignore that without the democrats supporting the war on Iraq, we never would have been able to go in.

[mk 11]

Those are the only two things that matter.That the left is able to judge the past decisions of Bush after they have plenty of time to see the results.Because let's face it, they never have nothing of value for anything current.So best to stick to the only thing you bring to the table, the ability to snipe at the heals of your betters.That and the selective memory needed to ignore that without the democrats supporting the war on Iraq, we never would have been able to go in.

BG: THE DEMOCRATS SAID THE SKY IS BLUE THE REPUBLICANS SAID 2+2=5TELL ME WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO'S WRONG"snipe at the heals [sic] of your betters."STARTING WARS OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES, SACRIFICING LIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND TRILLIONS OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS MAKES NO ONE BETTERThe Democrats (and media) post-9/11 were the biggest bunch of pansy-assed push overs, bullied one billion percent by the atmosphere of demented Caesarism which Rove and co. created so effectively wherein the slightest bit of dissent was INSTANTLY turned into accusations of a lack of "patriotism". I was probably angrier at the Dems in 2002-2004 than the Rs. My memory is not selective, it's a steel fucking trap.

[Balloon guy 158]

The only ones that cried lack of patriotism was the democrats whining about their failure to transform the defense of this country into a tool to grab onto power in the house and senate.But at least you bought it. And you're not letting it go because you closed your mind like a steel trap.Quick check for speeling errors, it makes your argument stronger, and let's face it, you need all the help you can get.

[CaneBrain 95]

"If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops."Yeah, no Republican ever said that.Lol.Only BG could tell someone else their mind is closed like a steel trap while staunchly defending a war that ended up being based on two ideas that were definitively proven false.

[Balloon guy 158]

"If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops."Yeah, no Republican ever said that.Lol.Only BG could tell someone else their mind is closed like a steel trap while staunchly defending a war that ended up being based on two ideas that were definitively proven false.

We only went to war for two reason?Talk about re-writing history to fit your political agenda.We went into Iraq so that we could have the maximum number of troops in the middle of the middle east and let the terrorist come to us on our terms.Iraq was just the perfect location because the UN had already laid the groundwork for justifying the invasion through allowing Clinton sneaking in spies with the nuclear inspectors that resulted in them being ousted, which made them spout off that Saddam was hiding something.So blame the UN and the democrats, they all could have stopped this, but they hate their country's military and would rather risk their lives for future political power obviously, because to argue that the democrats are right on this issue means exactly that.

[CaneBrain 95]

I could make up stuff too if I had the inclination. The war was sold to the American people on two premises:1) Iraq has WMDs and we need to be proactive in containing that threat2) Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda.Both were false.Also, I never said the Democrats were right or wrong about anything. Just that George Bush and his administration were as wrong as wrong can be (and as commander in chief and "the decider" his decisions on these issues were pretty important). mk is right you really can't get past and us v them mentality.

[Balloon guy 158]

I could make up stuff too if I had the inclination. The war was sold to the American people on two premises:1) Iraq has WMDs and we need to be proactive in containing that threat2) Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda.Both were false.Also, I never said the Democrats were right or wrong about anything. Just that George Bush and his administration were as wrong as wrong can be (and as commander in chief and "the decider" his decisions on these issues were pretty important). mk is right you really can't get past and us v them mentality.

Ah contraire'1. The worry was that if they didn't have them yet, they were actively seeking them. And the 10% chance that Saddam could get a nuke was too much of a chance for Bush. A reasonable argument made during a difficult time. Saddam had already bought all the things needed to make a nuke, Saddam had already bought all the equipment needed to build biological weapons. The general who asked permission to use chemical warfare on the US troops as they approached Baghdad must have been convinced by someone that they had them. Either Bush fooled him or Saddam did, but when a general in your army thinks you have them, let's not get all misty eyed thinking that Bush got it wrong.2. Saddam's ties were loose ones at best, the number two guy got free medical treatment etc. When Bush made his axis of evil speech, did you assume he meant Iran and North Korea also had ties to Al Qaeda? Iraq wasn't meant as punishment, it was a pro-active strike against terrorism. Your side's politicizing of the issue assures us that no president in the near future will be able to protect us against this type of thing, but will be forced to react to an attack. Pre-emptive strikes are no longer an allowable political option. That makes us less safeThe fact that Bush got some things wrong about Iraq has been shown to be a politicized issue by the left who label Bush as a liar about Iraq because they are morally in a vacuum and are un-American.If you are one of the few people that didn't want to go to war because war is bad, then this doesn't apply to you. Your just a standard tree hugging liberal. Good luck with Nadar again this year.

[mk 11]

The fact that Bush got some things wrong about Iraq has been shown to be a politicized issue by the left who label Bush as a liar about Iraq because they are morally in a vacuum and are un-American.

Yeah, who wants to hold anyone accountable for being "right" or "wrong" when it comes to sending troops into harm's way and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars?ONLY FUCKING LIBERAL FUCKING FAGGOTS AMIRITE

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, who wants to hold anyone accountable for being "right" or "wrong" when it comes to sending troops into harm's way and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars?ONLY FUCKING LIBERAL FUCKING FAGGOTS AMIRITE

thanks for saving me thirty seconds.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Saddam was bad.UN was loosing their will to keep him contained.When that inevitably happened Saddam would have been free to reconstruct his WMD machine unfettered by UN control.This would have been VERY BAD!Bush had the opportunity and the excuse to finally do what his father didn't have the balls to do. The choice was take him out now while it's easy or wait 10 years when it would have been impossible. Bush did the right thing.Now the after war was a major cluster fvck. But the war itself was necessary.

[CaneBrain 95]

Saddam was bad.UN was loosing their will to keep him contained.When that inevitably happened Saddam would have been free to reconstruct his WMD machine unfettered by UN control.This would have been VERY BAD!Bush had the opportunity and the excuse to finally do what his father didn't have the balls to do. The choice was take him out now while it's easy or wait 10 years when it would have been impossible. Bush did the right thing.Now the after war was a major cluster fvck. But the war itself was necessary.

By this reasoning, we should have invaded North Korea and Iran already since they are much farther along in their nuclear programs and are led by just as evil people as Saddam (if not worse).That's why it's such terrible reasoning. Not only was it not necessary, it was counter-productive as it took our focus off the actual place where Al Qaeda is, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we used the above reasoning, we would be constantly invading every country with mediocre scientific capabilities and a bad man as a leader. That's an unsustainable foreign policy.Also, please don't throw around terms like "inevitably" without any evidence. And since there were no WMDs there, saying that Iraq had a "WMD machine" is kinda like saying the Dolphins have a "special teams juggernaut"