Thread: Bush most liberal of U.S. presidents

Iraq is a complete DISASTER and, if you don't see that, you are in denial.

Really?

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WENT THERE!

Go ahead and get brainwashed by the same people who lied to you with Memo-gate last year in a feeble attempt to get Kerry elected.

When Republicans do it, it's a war (and always a disaster). When Democrats do it, it's a peacekeeping mission. According to the media, that is. It just sounds so much nicer.

To date in Iraq, there have been 2,063 deaths in Iraq and 19,801 injuries.

At the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter in Korea there were 3,603 deaths and over 15,000 injured. IN ONE BATTLE. Go ahead and look up D-Day if you want a real quagmire. People today are getting too soft.

Yes, one death is too many but to call it a complete disaster is a slap in the face to those of us who actually had the motivation to get out there and right a wrong. The real issue is that we have a culture of entitlement that was fostered by the advent of socialism into America post WWII. This was compounded by the baby boomers embracing it as teens and infecting our public education systems, public universities, public media and eventually mainstream media and entertainment. Then, the draft ended and people stopped doing for America, as JFK recommended, and started demanding entitlements like the illegal immigrants some of them profess to oppose. The result is that it is now Patriotic to hate America.

If you disagree with me go to Canada or at least try turning off the television. That's a start.

Happy Veterans Day.

There is a difference between the conflicts. Korea was invaded by a Communist Enemy. Viet Nam was invaded by a Communist Enemy. We were under Treaty Agreement to help defend these nations from Communist Aggression. Europe under Hitler was under a reign of aggression and terror and atrocities almost beyond our ability to comprehend. Yet we did not pursue a D-Day until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

In Iraq, there was no invader, there was no external threat to Iraq, there was no Treaty binding us to send troops and help them to defend their nation. In Iraq, there was no attack on us, no threat of an attack on us, no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any intentions to cause US harm of any kind, ever. There was no provocation for our invasion of Iraq.

That said, our Troops have liberated two peoples, freed two nations, and this is a "good thing". But this is done. Our national interest mission to remove Saddan from power, to ensure there are no WMDs in Iraq, to assist them in securing their nation while establishing a new government and police force is done. They have an insurgency, due mainly because of our continued presence there. Some terrorist types have moved in to give the US a hard time. When we leave, the insurgency will die down, the terrorist will disperse, and Iraqis can settle their differences Iraqi to Iraq. The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan and human rights are being restored.

Iraq is not a disaster. Iraq is now a free nation thanks to the the brave men and women of the United States, a Wackident, and our Allies.

But this endeavor was not undertaken for the American Interest.

Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were business wars for business purposes. Freedom and human rights were collateral benefits.

If the American People had known the truth, I doubt seriously we would have committed our service men and women to such an endeavor because of the high risk of casualties to ground troops and the inevitable civil differences that would ensue long after especially in Iraq.

What we have done can not be reversed nor would I want it to be because I am proud that both nations are free. I am enormously proud of the outstanding job our military has done in both countries and grateful to the depths of my soul for the thousands wounded and killed to achieve this.

But, as a matter of policy, we need to bring our troops home, leave Special Forces units to assist the Iraqis under cover, behind the scenes, invisibly to root out the trouble-makers, and build a base if the Iraqis would like for us to have one. The same is true for Afghanistan.

Our strong presence there now is a detraction because our national mission is over and we have no place in the local cultural and political mission of the New Iraq or New Afghanistan.

I supported the wars in both countries even after I learned that the missions were undertaken under false pretenses to complete the liberation.

But I do not support a long involvement in either country. We've done our job. It's time to hand the gavel over to the Iraqis and the Afghans and head home. This is not a cut and run. This is lying rhetoric from this Administration wishing to prolong the military involvement there This is pure common sense of knowing when your mission is completed and when we are over-staying our welcome.

There are facts now that can not be denied or ignored.

No more Americans need to die fighting Islam, battling local insurgents, building sewer lines when Iraqis are perfectly capable of building those lines and fighting their own insurgents, or roaming the hills of Afghanistan searching for disgruntled Taliban members which the Afghans know better than us how to locate and take-out. The Iraqis and Afghans are perfectly capable of maintaining law and order in their countries. This they have demonstrated extremely well during the long histories of both nations.

It's time for the Wackident to Shut Up His Lying Rhetoric and Order the Majority of our Troops Home Now.

I agree with Judy on almost all points. I diverge from her on the situation IN Iraq. My feeling is that they will descend into a civil war if we leave now ALTHOUGH I agree that it's time that we go and let them stand up for their own country. I do agree with Judy when she says that we are part of the problem. Our being there IS causing part of the problem with the insurgency BUT I am afraid that it will continue against the Iraqi people because of the Saddam loyalists.

I helped elect BUSH in 2000. I am NO DEMOCRAT and am CERTAINLY not so stupid that I would be influenced by the media in order to form an opinion. I am a smart woman who can see a situation for what it is and call a spade a spade. I was with Bush 100% when he took us to war in Afghanistan. He didn't lose me until he and his war-mongering cronies started trying to pump the American people full of LIES in order to go to Iraq for WHATEVER reason. They TRIED to convince the American people that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that was when I personally knew that there was something VERY DISHONEST going on.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. THANK GOD the American people are FINALLY believing that one. He was basically CRIPPLED by the sanctions and he was NO IMMINENT, or IMMEDIATE threat to our country. And THAT is the ONLY reason we should send our young people off to war. Saddam had NO RELATIONSHIP with bin Laden but, like sheep, the American people bought that one too. NOT I. Saddam sent money to the families of HAMAS suicide bombers. He and bin Laden were basically ENEMIES because Saddam was NOT a religious FANATIC. I'm sure bin Laden is sitting back APPLAUDING our getting rid of Saddam because it has given his organization and others like it the place and opportunity to set up training grounds MUCH WORSE than what he had in Afghanistan.

But Judy is right that having our military there now is just antagonizing the whole bunch of religious fanatics in the Middle East and I don't see any option but to start withdrawing our troops.

Count Floyd--you have some TERRIFIC points about the religious aspect of the Presidents!! I hadn't thought about it along those lines but Carter sure WAS a DISASTER! And, I keep seeing that one interview with Bush when he said he got his advice from "another Father" and he looked up in the sky!! I thought then that we were REALLY in trouble. He is a FANATIC. And, Hillary scares the pea-turkey out of me. But, let me say this right now. IF CONDI runs against Hillary AND, IF there isn't a third party candidate, I will vote for Hillary. I will NEVER vote again for ANYONE who is REMOTELY connected to WACKIDENT.

And I can only add that Carter is the one who made Hispanics a minority group in the USA because of language...simply because they spoke "Spanish".

Is that a sell-out or what?

That induced alot of Hispanic illegals I'm sure because if they could get in and get a fake social security card, they are in line with all American Minorities for quota jobs, affirmative action, special treatment for college admission, special loans for small business, and etc., etc., etc.

They have robbed millions of Black Americans for whom these programs were designed and funded by the American People to mitigate the consequences of race discrimination.

We have Carter to thank for that and somehow I don't think the "father" told him to do that one or if Carter thinks he heard something, it was his own marbles clanking together.

Well, he had, and still HAS, a BUNCH of marbles!!! I can still see him sitting in the White House bundled up in a sweater during the oil crisis! BUT, I will say ONE THING for him--he DID urge us to CONSERVE and set an example himself. That's more than I can say for SOME PEOPLE!! I don't MEAN YOU, JUDY! You CONSTANTLY tell us to CONSERVE, SAVE, DON'T SPEND, DON'T EAT, DON'T DRIVE!!!!!

Okay, here's the deal:

There is a difference between the conflicts. Korea was invaded by a Communist Enemy. Viet Nam was invaded by a Communist Enemy. We were under Treaty Agreement to help defend these nations from Communist Aggression. Europe under Hitler was under a reign of aggression and terror and atrocities almost beyond our ability to comprehend. Yet we did not pursue a D-Day until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

My only point in bringing up other conflicts was to illustrate that Iraq actually is NOT a "quagmire" by statistical facts. Vietnam, Korea, and WWII had higher casualty rates DAILY than Iraq has had throughout the entire war! I didn't raise the issue to justify going in there. Part of me knows that it is a son wishing to fulfill his father's legacy. However, Saddam had imperialist vision. His sons did, too. To say that we had him contained through sanctions is COMPLETELY erronious because he just diverted Oil-For-Food money and traded illegally with Syria and other neighbors to get around that. The wonderful U.N. that all you liberals out there are so proud of can thank yourselves for that.

He wasn't "contained", he just starved his people and remained powerful. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (remember 1991?) were horrified of him. Hell, the Ba'ath Party was founded with Adolf Hitler's imperialism as a model. So to say that he, and his sons especially, were crippled by U.S. policy is wishful thinking at best. Remember those pesky No Fly Zones? All the troop buildup at Prince Sultan in Saudi and in the Kuwaiti desert throughout the '90s? If that's called "containment" we should have knocked him out years ago, like that coward Clinton said he was going to do and then got sidetracked by a snapped thong.

Then there's this:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page= ... ID=SP59203

So whoever said this,

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

can put that in their pipe and smoke it. Mohammed Atta himself was trained about 20 minutes from where I was stationed in Iraq. Keep being a slave to your t.v. and justifying your stances by what Dan Rather believes. I know better.

Mohammad Atta was trained in Iraq. That's the first I've heard that. The government account is that he trained in Afghanistan and of course was trained to fly the planes in the United States.

What was he trained in Iraq to do?

I have NEVER heard that. AND, I do NOT listen to DAN RATHER. Never have. Won't now for sure. In fact, I MOSTLY listen to the White House White Wash channel, Fox, so I believe, if there was ANY INDICATION that Atta trained in Iraq, Fox would have reported it. AND, speaking of ATTA, the Bush claim about Atta meeting one of Iraq's big wigs in Prague was erroneous as well.

And, I have read, from cover to cover, the 9/11 Report--even BOUGHT THE BOOK--and their conclusion was overwhelming in saying that Saddam was in no way connected with the attacks on 9/11. I don't have a pipe but I wouldn't need one in this case. This fallacy, IMPLIED by Cheney and Company, was yet another one of the claims by this administration that has been debunked.

This war was planned by Bush and Cronies from the get-go. I'm not sure exactly what their reasons were but I've always thought that it was to finish the job that Bush 1 SHOULD have done when we were there the first time. Whether they skewed the intelligence or not, I don't know. What I DO know is that they took some FLIMSY intelligence and hyped it out the roof in order to do something that they had already planned to do long before 9/11. They just wanted to make the American people THINK that Saddam was involved but they never came out and SAID that. Just subtle inference that planted that seed in the minds of the American people and one that a lot of people STILL believe even though the administration has since SAID that he didn't.

Saddam was a terrible person but this world is FULL of terrible leaders and we sure can't get rid of all of them. I just still believe this was a very unnecessary and extremely expensive--both in the loss of lives AND in the enormous costs. I have to disagree that Iraq is NOT a quagmire. I believe that, IF we stay until things are stable, it will be a quagmire. The only thing that would prevent it from being one is pulling the troops out.

The most important reason that I opposed this war in Iraq was that they pulled most of the troops OUT of AFGHANISTAN and basically just gave up on trying to find bin Laden--the CAUSE of 9/11. I feel like, if Bush had kept a big military presence in Afghanistan, we could have found the real perpetrator.

It's funny that you mention that FoxNews would have ran a story on this because I found out about it on Special Report with Brit Hume. And I know that Brit tends to lean in favor of the administration but MEMRI is actually a credible news agency that shies away from tabloid stories. The liberal dominated networks would never touch this for fear of bolstering the Administration.

As for the "flimsy intelligence" you're talking about the intelligence agencies of China, Britain, the U.S., France, and satellite technology that photographed the WMD's, as well as the WMD's being trucked into Syria.

I remember personally having somebody in my platoon get struck with mysterious chemical burns after a convoy and an IED that was laden with VX gas (very nasty stuff). The 9/11 report was extensive but never investigated the link between Iraq and Syria (Ba'athists) and their tacit approval of the terrorist culture, did it? Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Kennedy and Clinton had hands in that and, as we all know, Democrats are not above lying to save their own.

But oh, I don't know squat even though I spent a year of my life in Iraq and you know everything because you bought a book, use the internet and watch t.v. It's beneath me to even argue with you any further because you're obviously too proud to admit that you, from your chair in N.C., don't know a thing about the situation aside from what the media wants you to know. And even then you still missed the FoxNews report that brought this to life and was quickly buried by the mainstream press.

It took us almost 15 years in Western Europe after WWII to get where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Elections, oil pipelines 98% secured, united Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis, DEAD SONS, Saddam captured, people rebuilding after 30 years of torture, rape and genocide. But oh, trust your Democrats. And then there's Afghanistan. Bin Laden is probably dead according to the CIA, al-Zawahiri is hitting up al-Zarqawi for cash, elections (parliamentary and Presidential), we got Al-Qaida's number 4 guy a month ago. Not to mention we've captured or killed hundreds of their key leaders!

Oh, but trust your media! IT'S A QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM! I don't care who you believe. Just sit on your butt and fume over it and write me a nasty reply. You won't even bother me. People like you are actually kinda funny, looking through your monitor at the world.

As for the other one, Atta was trained in leadership and various close combat tactics in Iraq.

Whew! This is quite a topic!

Bootise? Clinton? Yikes! LOL

I saw the writing on the wall when all the cabinet members started resigning upon Bush's re-election. I am sorry to say that I was one of the people who voted for him and convinced others NOT to vote for Kerry, who I didn't just start despising in 2004 but closer to 1974 when he publically called the Viet Nam vets -- my brother, several cousins, and 2/3 of the guys I went to school with -- baby killers and murderers. No third party candidate had enough support to win and I couldn't find a candidate who believed in closed borders vehemently enough for me to back him.

The tantrum President Bush recently threw because the vast majority of the American people have come to disagree with him makes me very uncomfortable, truth be told. That he would lash out against his own people in defense of keeping a war going that has long since been won "with honor" sickens me.

I feel he deliberately let the illegal immigrant problem spiral out of control because he hoped for their illegal votes and the votes of their relatives who are already here in 2004. I don't care what anyone says, if an illegal can get fake ID, he can get a fake voter registration card! Who's to say that the RNC didn't help them? Who's to say the DNC AND the RNC won't help them the next time?

I can't say that anything could ever make me believe that Clinton or any other pure "politician" could fix the mess Bush has made. I think this road to perdition began with Lyndon Johnson and it isn't going to matter who is in office, the American people are going to suffer and the suffering is going to increase until we band together and vote just about every single person currently in the legislative branch of the Federal government OUT of office and replace them with people who are living in the real world of today -- people who have been paying attention to what's going on from the standpoint of workers, not political figures.

Face it, the word "Politician" has become so akin to "Corruption" that I'm surprised they aren't described as synonyms in the dictionary! True, some politicians are less "educated" and their pet projects vary but the core values that revolve around greed and avarice are still present in all of the DNC/RNC candidates who have aspired to the US Presidency in recent years.

As for Iraq. I originally half believed in the war. And I say "half" because although I believed there were weapons left and that the weapons are probably in Syria due to satellite shots in the 90's that showed them being moved, I wasn't so sure that we should go charging in there alone, which is what Cowboy Bush was basically doing.

Although I believed that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out, I also knew of the different factions in Iraq ( Shi'ites, Kurds, Sunnis, etc.) that would make a new government unstable. That is the reason Daddy Bush didn't go to Baghdad and it was a legitimate concern for people worried about the stability or lack thereof in the Middle East. The rest of the world didn't seem to care about the genocide taking place in Iraq that Bush turned into part of his excuse when the weapons didn't turn up. That proves to me that countries like France that didn't jump on that bandwagon are all mouth and no action when it comes to human rights.

Most of those countries that Bush claims as our "allies" sent fifty soldiers for the US to protect along with themselves and to me that isn't mililtary support. Not that the soldiers from other countries didn't fight and die because they did. But you have to admit that those countries had brains enough to keep their soldiers at home to protect their own countries should the need arise.

For me, it isn't the idea that there weren't WMD, if that is even true. The story has been changed so often by the media that I don't know who's the biggest liar anymore. I think Bush was so wrapped up in his own fantasy that he convinced himself he was telling the truth. Some claim he is a pathological liar, which would support my theory. What the media's excuse is for constantly trying to mislead the public, I couldn't even begin to imagine.

In my eyes, Bush has become nothing but a cowboy who doesn't think things through before he acts. When he acts on behalf of the American people it is disastrous for all. Like many, the day he called the MinuteMen "vigilantes" was the day my disappointment in him changed into anger. From that day forward, there was very little he could have done to make anything right short of putting all our troops on our borders, stopping our participation in all trade agreements, and searching every single ship in our ports to show that he sincerely wants to protect this land, or jobs and our soverign future.

In my eyes, the problem with the war/s is the idea that Bush went in to Iraq AND Afghanistan with no plan. If Afghanistan is so stable now with their drug lord president, why are our soldiers still there? The current administration coined the phrase "Iraqi Freedom." Their freedom came on "purple finger day" as far as I'm concerned.

If Bush's Sunni buddies didn't like the guy the others picked, too bad. They sat on the sidelines like spoiled kids and refused to vote. And, incidentally, Sunni Moslems include the majority the Saudi Arabians Bush seems so reluctant to accuse of anything. The Saudi monarchy is on pretty shaky ground as well, leaving the door open for an invasion into a country full of cowards and oilfields. As one of the US citizens present in Saudi Arabia when Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, I can tell you that non-Saudi citizens (employees and dependents of American companies) had to arrange their own charter flights out of there because so many Saudi citizens were fleeing their own country in fear of invasion. The Saudi government owns Saudia Airlines and Saudi men take precedence over anyone else. But I digress....

Our troops should have been out of Iraq the day after our soldiers stood guard so they could go to the polls. No matter what Bush tries to do or how many of our boys he gets killed trying to do it, Iraq (nor any other Middle Eastern country) isn't going to see democracy as he sees it. And, if they pretend they do today, it won't take fifty years for some group of insurgents to overthrow any government in the Mid East who doesn't govern with an iron hand. And that is how paranoid meglomaniacs like Saddam Hussein come to exist. That is my opinion, of course. I wish I was wrong but I don't think I am.

In the meantime, our President has too many irons in other people's fires to even care what is happening in his own country. When more old people start eating dog food for dinner because they can't afford groceries, gas to get to the store, or medical care, I guess someone will care. When the bucket runs dry for the 20 million illegals we support while we leave the door wide open for more to arrive, when even the few Americans who manage to get in line ahead of the illegals can't get social assistance to tide them over the rough spots, someone will care.

I don't know that any of these things make Bush a "liberal" or a "conservative" or anything else other than a sorry leader who let his people down.