To those that think Bush is a terrible President...

[W00lygimp]

The economy is on an incredible rebound since 9/11.
Seriously, its not his fault the economy took a dive-- Everyone who isn't blinded by the liberal propaganda sees this. The president isn't even that responsible for the economy, so that won't be a black mark on his record.

He's acted accordingly on the war on terror.
I think thats a good mark on his record.

He's acted average on the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, was supported by the majority of the American Public-- 51% of us still support it. Can't hold that against him.

Why is he such a horrible President?
Ok before you say [censored] you [censored]'s I'm going to beat you in the face with a toaster.

[jesusarenque]

Going into Iraq was supported by so many Americans because Bush lied and gave false information as to why we were going there.

[Dynasty]

Wooly,

Please don't start a new thread everytime you have a new idea. The board is going to be very cluttered tonight. It's best for all of us if we can keep it down a bit.

There's a whole thread already out there discussing how a Bush Presidency would be viewed if he lost. Your post would probably generate more discussion there.

[West]

If you want to know why people think the Bush is administration is so horrible, you can probably find plenty of what you want to know just by reading back posts on this forum.

[W00lygimp]

Bush didn't give us false information. The CIA gave us false information, the WORLD beleived Saddam had WMD's. Hell, he [censored] violated 17 UN resolutions.

[jesusarenque]

Bush KNEW the CIA information was false before he cited it. He backed it anyway because it fit his agenda. That's the problem.

[challenger84]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush didn't give us false information. The CIA gave us false information, the WORLD beleived Saddam had WMD's. Hell, he [censored] violated 17 UN resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shut up. You know nothing.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush didn't give us false information. The CIA gave us false information, the WORLD beleived Saddam had WMD's. Hell, he [censored] violated 17 UN resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shut up. You know nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently neither do you. Woolygimp is right in this case.

[jesusarenque]

You cite Iraq's violation of 17 UN resolutions. Israel has violated MANY, MANY, more. Should we invade Israel and force the Israelis to comply?

[goldcowboy]

Please provide verifiable documentation for this assertion. Otherwise admit you are guilty of propagating just one more liberal urban myth.

[West]

If you think Bush just made an "honest mistake" and was "misled" by the CIA, you truly live in fantasy land. That's all I'm going to say about it, it's all been said before, hopefully in a few hours, the clown will have been deposed and we can all breath a sigh of relief.

[Cyrus]

"The economy is on an incredible rebound since 9/11. Seriously, its not his fault the economy took a dive. The president isn't even that responsible for the economy."

Oh? And whose responsibility is it, then? The Mirage floor manager?

And I noticed that you want Bush to get the credit for the "economy's rebound" but you claim, in the same breath, that the economy is not his responsibility! (They call this cognitive dissonance.)

"[Bush] acted accordingly on the war on terror. I think thats a good mark on his record."

Bush did not consider terrorism to be high on his priorities when he took over and until 9/11. This is part of the official record. Vlinton briefed him personally and Dubya was glass eyed and skipped to the next subject. Clarke was speaking to deaf people, warning them about OBL.

What exactly did Dubya achieve in his "war against terror"? Except causing the ranks of terrorist volunteers to swell, that is.

Dubya's record in Iraq is atrocious. This should be more obvious to poker players than anyone else.

"He's acted average on the war in Iraq."

Average ?! Baby, is that's average, then I don't know what gawdawful, stupid mess looks like.

And I like it when the neo-cons claim that in Iraq the lessons of Vietnam had been learned so as not to be repeated. Yeah, right. In Iraq, nobody from Rummy on up the ladder listened to the brass! Which was supposedly a huge mistake in Nam. Nice work, bozos.

[Matty]

You're way out of your league on these boards.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

[Manimal 42]

GWB took the sympathy of the entire world after 9/11 and turned it into universal distrust and fear. We don't need to run the country based on world opinion but niether can we completely ignore it.

For the first time in US history, we have invaded a country that had niether attacked us nor was an immidiate threat. Even Rumsfeld tries to deny he said it was an immediate threat.

Whereas in Vietnam, one can make the case that atrocities perpetrated by US troops were a response to the insanity of the war there, in Iraq we have tortured prisoners of war in a manner that ranks us with other "evil" regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries.

...and he used the theme from "Top Gun" at his campaign rallies ;~)

[tolbiny]

Wacki
Please adress Colin Powell's statements prior to 9/11 about Iraq not having WMD capabilities.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think Bush just made an "honest mistake" and was "misled" by the CIA, you truly live in fantasy land. That's all I'm going to say about it, it's all been said before, hopefully in a few hours, the clown will have been deposed and we can all breath a sigh of relief.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, your right. The CIA, Isreal, Jordan, Egypt, and all those other countries were screaming Iraq didn't have WMD's. *sarcasm*

And Tommy Franks is lying when he says "Nobody was more convinced that Iraq had WMD's than me". *sarcasm* By the way, just so you know, he's retired so he has nothing to gain by saying that. So who is living in the (CBS) dream world?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki
Please adress Colin Powell's statements prior to 9/11 about Iraq not having WMD capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't he state otherwise at the UN?

[tolbiny]

"Didn't he state otherwise at the UN?"

If you want my take on that i will include it undearneth. My point is that Both Bush's secretary of state, and his National sercurity advisor (although Rice's statements were quite old) had both stated that Iraq did not have WMD capabilities.
There are several posters who continue to assert that the entire world was mislead by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Apparently there was enough evidence for somepeople in the "know" to make that call. Since i didn't have all of this info the best that i can do is to say that Powell and rice's initial assesments have turned out to be correct.

As to Powell providing evidence to the UN- i believe that Initially powell was against the invasion and spoke out against it. He abruptly changed his position and eventually spoke to the Un. I think he was chosen to speak to the UN because he had objected to the war, and him speaking at that point was a show of solidarity within the administration. I have never forgotten that Bush is Powell's boss, and it seems reasonable (i say that it is a possibility) that if Bush told him he needed his support for the war that he would give it to him. Powell also being from the military would understand the nessecity of haveing a unified command on such a big decision, and this again could lead to him changing his stance without nessecarily chaging his mind.

[wacki]

That is a bold accusation based off of little evidence. I have a hard time believing Powell would lie to the UN without realizing the consequences.

[tolbiny]

Lie is far to strong of a word, how about this- i find it plausibel that powell could have personal doubts but end up in a situation where he felt it best to make those statements.
However you still havent addressed the issue of eveidence being available that led powell and rice to their original conclusions. Bush has never addressed it either.

[wacki]

And is Tommy Franks lying when he says "Nobody was more convinced that Iraq had WMD's than me"?

[tolbiny]

I siad nothing about tommy franks. You have a problem with my interpretations, Fine. But there are those on this board who keep saying everyone, forgetting that there were those who did not believe so at one point. If you could point me to the evidence that changed their minds, or discredit the initial information, that is one thing. Untill then i don't think that the bush camp can keep laying 100% of the blame on the CIA and other intelligence organizations.

[PITTM]

it starts with the usually W00lygimp title, "to those who disagree with me on ____" and then we get him swearing at us and then lots of people swear at each other. congrats.

rj

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he such a horrible President?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Patriot Act. Appointing John Ashcroft Attorney General. Running up the largest US budget deficit in history.

Do I really need any other reasons?

-Mike

[Victor]

First look at what upper level administration personnel had been saying before the war. Powell and Rice stated publicly that there were no weapons prior to 9/11. The rest of the admin (perle, wolfowitz, rumsfeld et al) had made a career of promoting a hawkish agenda in Iraq. Prior they had worked for various Israeli think tanks and pitched a plan to invade Iraq to the Israeli admin. This was of course denied by Netanyahu. 9/11 was used as a reason to find intelligence (read: make propaganda) to invade Iraq. Bush went along because he certainly hates sadaam (remember his many of his family members were very nearly killed). This admin put tons of pressure on the CIA and to find evidence of WMD or Al Quada presence. They relied on Iraqi defectors and informants that gave false info simply because they wanted to get paid by the CIA (remember Ahmed Chalabi, he was the most "trusted") Furthermore, the fact that Egypt and especially Israel would persuade USA to attack Iraq is obvious since both of those countries are enemies of Sadaam. Sharon certainly is very war bent and not the most honest of people either.

Read the book "A Pretext for War" and these and many more falacies are uncovered. Follow it up with your own research and you will find most of it is true.

Not that it matters as soon the American peoples path will be set and arguing will be meaningless.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
For the first time in US history, we have invaded a country that had niether attacked us nor was an immidiate threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe our country invaded other countries with no threat or provocation. It began in Cuba in 1898 and continued all through the caribbean and central american region.

I also believe the Bush family were directly behind the bombing of NYC, and that they will continue to have their Sauie friends aka "islamic terrorists" continue.

The Bush family are terrorists and traitors. If Bush wins tnight, the headlines should say "Bush wins: the Appocolypse continues".

[InchoateHand]

x