Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:35 PM
Beer and Pizza Beer and Pizza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Bush

andy,

I'm glad you posted this. I was afraid someone was going to post about the democratic election being held in Iraq today. We don't need threads praising Bush for helping the Iraqi people live in freedom. Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.

Good job on keeping the forum focused on the appropriate topics. The history of Bush's day to day actions in 2003 is much more important than the future of those millions of Iraqi people for years to come.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:44 PM
Kurn, son of Mogh Kurn, son of Mogh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cranston, RI
Posts: 4,011
Default Re: Bush

Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

If you agree, it's a "reason." If you disagree, it's an "excuse."

Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

I'll take that chance. Better than continuing to mollycoddle Islamist scum. (yes, I know Saddam was ostensibly secular)


What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:47 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Bush

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the key foreign policy players, were all on public record of beingin favor of regime change in Iraq during the Clinton administration. Wolfowitz made a presentation at Camp David the first week after 9/11 proposing an invasion of Iraq before anyone knew who was responsible for 9/11. Bush cornered Richard Clarke and pressured him to look for a connection between Hussein and 9/11. The White House first denied that such a confrontation took place, then backtracked to admit it had. Rumsfeld asked Clarke for targets in Iraq and when Clarke asked him if he meant Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, "No, there are no good targets in Afghanistan." Paul O'Neill says that getting Hussein was a priority in national security meeting from the beginning of the Bush administration.

I don't know if the troops are aware of what would be the appropriate steps to provide the means of victory, but certinaly our troops know how the American politial system works and that a country where all march in lockstep to whatever the leader says would not be a country worth defending. I would think, therefore, that debate and critique would be welcomed by the troops.

When the Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, they probably thought the administration would know what they were doing. The administration, however, deliberately failed to prepare for the occupation, thus jeopardizing the lives of our troops needlessly. Had the Congress knew that the administration would ignore the recommendations of numerous government and private groups not to disband the Iraqi army, not to dismantle the infrastructure of government, not to allow looting, not to prepare for the inevitable counterinsurgency, not to treat the Iraqis as partners in security efforts for a year after the fall of Hussein, not to attempt to seriously train and equip Iraqi forces for proactive sceurity and counterinsurgency imssions until 2004--well, it is certainly understandable that it is having second thought on allowing an open-ended occupation.

I hope that the world has indeed been made a safer place by our invasion of Iraq. I fear that is has not, in large part because of the incompetence and willful arrogance of the administration. Whatever irresponsible criticism of the president there may or may not have been, the irresponsibiility of the administration in not being prepared for the occupation is by far the bigger problem.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:51 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Bush

I didn't give the speech the president gave yesterday. A major speech, given by the President of the United States, on Iraq, in which, in addition to mentioning the intelligence failures for which he took reponsibility, he talked about the irresponsibility of his critics, would seem to be an important subject on the day he made the speech. It was the lead story in most media outlets, including mainstream, talk radio, and blogosphere.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:51 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
andy,
I'm glad you posted this. I was afraid someone was going to post about the democratic election being held in Iraq today. We don't need threads praising Bush for helping the Iraqi people live in freedom. Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes, we are so concerned over the 'freedom' of brown people we have never met who live half a world away.

Those events in 2003 are currently killing our boys and draining our treasury. history matters.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:53 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you could continue having incessant squabbling/bickering/flame throwing about the issue on a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to see anything new brought up to "discuss." I've yet to see anything brought up to suggest how his "lies" can be proven and punishment administered.

What I do see is constant whining that's absolutely no different, IMO, than Repubs dragging up Monica L., missing file folders that mysteriously re-appear, homicide/suicide theories (Vince F), etc., etc. None of which ever got settled. And never will.

My original suggestion stands. Package the evidence. Take it to a grand jury. Get an indictment. Prosecute or impeach. Or shut up about it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:55 PM
sam h sam h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 742
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administrationís handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?


[/ QUOTE ]
because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is twice that Andy asked you to provide evidence for something and your answer was a total non sequitor. Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence for either of these propositions?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:58 PM
superleeds superleeds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 309
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

If you agree, it's a "reason." If you disagree, it's an "excuse."

[/ QUOTE ]

So they essentially mean the exact opposite of each other?

[ QUOTE ]
Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

I'll take that chance. Better than continuing to mollycoddle Islamist scum. (yes, I know Saddam was ostensibly secular)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it OK to mollycoddle the Saudi Islamic Scum or is it just the ostensibly secular ones who don't do business the way the US want.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11.

I'm sure they did everything in their power to prevent it. Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-15-2005, 01:04 PM
Beer and Pizza Beer and Pizza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, we are so concerned over the 'freedom' of brown people we have never met who live half a world away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing about which Presidents care about people based on their skin color:

Bush41: Freed the brown people in Panama from a dictator.

Bush41: Freed the brown people of Kuwait from an invading dictator.

Bush41: Moved into Somalia to defend black people.

Clinton: Abandoned the black people in Somalia.

Clinton: Defended the white people in Bosnia.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Afghanistan.

Bush43: Brought democracy to the brown people in Iraq.

It seems that the Bush family cares about people, regardless of their skin color. Kudos to the Bush family.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-15-2005, 01:11 PM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 462
Default Re: Bush

[ QUOTE ]
Much better that we quabble about some events in 2003 that we have discussed before.



[/ QUOTE ]

The event was yesterday and that had not yet been discussed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.