Disgusting Comment by President Bush

[ QUOTE ]
And you showed why most people voted against him, because he has no spine, will do whatever it takes to get elected, even if it sacrafices his principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of principles ... what are Gee Duh's principles exactly? Massive government spending? Massive pork and no-bid contracts to big oil? Massive pork to pharmaceutical companies? Making sure that his pals and cronies (Brown, Miers, etc.) are placed at the highest levels of government even if they are disastrously underqualified monkeys?

Please clarify.

[Cyrus]

Enough with this crap.

The administrations prior to Bushy were warning about WMDs but the focus was on non-nuclear WMDs. Plus, nowhere was Saddam's Iraq characterized as presenting a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. serious enough to warrant invasion.

Israel was the only country in the world that stood to benefit from Saddam's overthrow. While, contrary to what latter-day prophets are claiming, the United States was NOT. (Saddam run a strictly anti-communist, anti-fundamentalist shop.)

The Clinton adinistration was correctly focused on the threat of muslim extremism & terrorism, worldwide. That was the prime objective of diplomatic and clandestine operations during Clinton's era and it was for this purpose that Clinton asked Congress repeatedly for money and legislation. Republican-controlled Congress turned down most of his requests (all backed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities) and with the stingiest of rebukes -- just read what Newt and Dubya were saying at the time, about "dictatorship", "censorship", "restriction of indvidual rights", etc etc!

Dubya's entourage was, from the start, obsessed with Iraq -- for reasons that had nothing to to do with American security. I could buy "American interests" if you could show me how --theoretically- they were advanced by the war, and morality be damned. But I said "theoretically"; in reality, American interests and security have been severely compromised by Dubya's folly.

"...Helping Iraqis get a democracy", gimme a break.

[nicky g]

"Iraq had Uranium stockpiles that US Troops removed. The UN weapons inspectors knew and inventoried these stockpiles."

These were yellowcake uranium stockpiles. Yellowcake is extremely difficult to weaponise (North Korea did not use yellowcake uranium to create its nukes; I'm not sure if anyone ever has), and noone believes Iraq had anything approaching the technology or capacity to do so. And, as you point out, their whereabouts were sealed and monitored by the UN. Yellowcake stockpiles (which is naturally occuriing in Iraq) are in no way WMD stockpiles.

This has been pointed out here about 1000 times.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although the number I've heard thrown around is 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, but don't ask me to quote it

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that's good, because it's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Kaplan's article:

"There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect."

Dumb. They choose somewhere at random, but it's not accessible so they choose the closet accessible village, adn that destroys the randomness of it? How? That's still effectively random.

"The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?"

What's his point here? They left Fallujah out. Clearly, if they'd have kept it in, the results would have been even higher. Is he saying the figures are too low?


"Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."

This is not a reasonable comparison. Saying between 4% and 96% is the same as seeing between the least amount possible and the most amount possible. There are upper and lower boundaries; it's utterly meaningless. There are no upper boundaries with numbers of people, the equivalent to the % thing would be saying between zero and the entire population of Iraq, which is clearly nothing like what the Lancet report said.

"The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war."

THis needs more looking into, as the Lancet researchers may have been using different criteria than the UN. THerefore for example if the UN estimated the post-war deathrate, they may have come up with a higher estimate than the Lancet team, but with a similar change in pre- and post-war death rates. You can't use the UN numbers until you know the different teams were using the same methods.

"The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview."

Give me a break - some. The vast majority of deaths in the war would have gone unreported in the Western press, which IBC takes its figures from.

[andyfox]

"It is . . . regrettable that Senator Kennedy has dounf more time to say negative things about Presdient Bush than he ever did about Saddam Hussein, " said WHite House Press Secretary in an emailed comment.

He's probably also said more negative things about President Bush than he has about Woodrow Wilson or Charles DeGaulle or Joseph Stalin. Bush is our president, elected to serve the people. Bush is the man who is our commander in chief. We, as Americans, are most concerned about what our president does.

The Democrats have nothing to be proud about on Iraq. But the administration should learn how a democracy works if they expect to export it to Iraq.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The administrations prior to Bushy were warning about WMDs but the focus was on non-nuclear WMDs. Plus, nowhere was Saddam's Iraq characterized as presenting a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. serious enough to warrant invasion.
************************************************** *********
Iraq violated the armistice multiple times and the even tried to assassinate Bush41 when he went to Kuwait in (1991?). Either of these were reason enough to take Hussein out. An armistice is a contract between two warring countries. The losing nation agrees to the terms of the armistice in exchange for not being attacked. If the armistice is violated then they MUST be attacked. Otherwise armistice are 100% WORTHLESS. Clinton used cruise missles which had ZERO affect. Once Hussein tried to assassinate Bush41 his fate was sealed....


Israel was the only country in the world that stood to benefit from Saddam's overthrow. While, contrary to what latter-day prophets are claiming, the United States was NOT.
************************************************** **********
There was little benefit for the USA to overthrow Hussein. But his consistent sponsorship of terror groups, violations of the armistice, and the assassination attempt of Bush41 forced the USA to act.


The Clinton adinistration was correctly focused on the threat of muslim extremism & terrorism, worldwide. That was the prime objective of diplomatic and clandestine operations during Clinton's era and it was for this purpose that Clinton asked Congress repeatedly for money and legislation. Republican-controlled Congress turned down most of his requests (all backed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities) and with the stingiest of rebukes --
************************************************** ***
ARE YOU KIDDING???? You are DREAMING. Clinton did no such thing. His former FBI Director Freeh (sp?) said just the opposite. During the 9/11 investigation, Sandy Burger got caught stealing top secret documents that exposed some of Clintons screwups. Clinton was a modern day Nero fiddling while the terrorists attack the USA several times (world trad center, Kobar towers, USS Cole, etc...). If you want to post supporting links, I'll look at them. Meanwhile I'll believe Freeh and others over your Clinton-Rose-Colored- Glass view of the world.


Dubya's entourage was, from the start, obsessed with Iraq -- for reasons that had nothing to to do with American security.
************************************************** *******
Yes Bush43 was obsessed with Iraq, as Clinton SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Bush43 did what Clinton did not have the balls to do. As I said before, if you violate an armistice or try to assassinate a US president, then you MUST go to war.


in reality, American interests and security have been severely compromised by Dubya's folly.
************************************************** *********
You don't know that. It will take years to know whether the attempt to bring democracy to Iraq results in a better and more secure world. You are thinking in months while others think in decades.


"...Helping Iraqis get a democracy", gimme a break.
************************************************** ****
I agree. I don't give a damn about Iraqis. But this war was forced on the USA by the reasons I previously mentioned. I'm not a big fan of the Arab culture. If I had my choice, I would love to see the Kurds get their own country at the expense of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The Kurds have been ****ed by so many other muslim cultures they have a more rational view of the world. I read a story where many Kurds admire Israel. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietsche]

You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well. They all saw the SAME INTELLIGENCE prepared by the CIA. They all said the same thing about the threat of Iraq. The only difference is the polls have changed and Bush43 is sticking to his principles and the democrats are running from their former war rhetoric. The Dems voted for war just like the Repubs did....

To believe Bush lied you have to believe there was a MASSIVE conspiracy that included all the major Democrat political leaders. If you believe this you probably believe the Jews control the world's finances under the control of the illuminati who are controlled by the free masons.

Bottom Line:
The USA made the correct decision to invade Iraq because Hussein violated the armistive NUMEROUS times and he tried to assassinate Bush41 in Kuwait in 1991(?). The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake. If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.........

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question all of these people should be answering is.

Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom Line:
The USA made the correct decision to invade Iraq because Hussein violated the armistive NUMEROUS times and he tried to assassinate Bush41 in Kuwait in 1991(?). The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake. If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is crap becaue North Korea is much more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Should we invade China? All the president has accomplished with his failed Iraqi war is to show the rest of the world how inept our leadership is. Now that Bush has failed in his attempt to takeover Iraq, North Korea knows they have nothing to worry about and can build all the WMDs they want.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.