Bush's Speech: A Critique

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ZEB wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
ZEB wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Why is it then when a republican president who agressively pursues terrorism his impeachment is near? Yet a democratic president can sit idley by as we are attacked multiple times in an 8 year period, lie to a federal grand jury and still be considered a great president. In case anyone didn’t read on MSNBC, information collected in Iraq led to the arrests of the NYC subway threat.

MSN There, that’s for all those that think we would be better off if we weren’t fighting in Iraq.

How silly your are!

You forgot rule number one with those guys: “Anything Bush says or does is wrong.” Now how easy is that?

We are called “Cheerleaders” because we back the President. Even though many of us (including me) have disagreed with GW on some major issues. However, I have not yet heard anyone on the left (on this forum) give GW credit for anything. According to them he is a buffoon who is evil and somehow at the same time a genius who is getting rich somehow by the invasion of Iraq.

It’s actually comical if you keep a close watch.

That should explain it for you…

Zeb, do you know why we point out the myriad bad things this presidency has done? Because they far outwiegh any good things! Go look at the national debt levels in your country, look the wealth distribution too, look at New Orleans, look at his failure to stop terrorism, look how many of your compatriates have died in the Middle East. I don’t personally see any of his policies which offset the issues I just outlined. I never called Bush evil, I personally wouldn’t use religously loaded words like that. I don’t know how rich he personally is getting from Iraq but I think the military contracts and civilian contracts are making a lot of his pals rich. Why don’t you scroll thorugh Reuters.com or the BBC.co.uk looking for Haliburton contracts and such and find out, or would that burst your bubble? I know neo-cons are by their very nature blind to reality though, so this will no doubt all fall on deaf ears. Coincidentally have you ever been out of the States Zeb? (just wondering).

Yes, I’m sure England is far better off :)[/quote]

Wait, I thought we were discussing the US president. I’m happy to discuss problems over here but they aren’t really within the remit of a discussion on Bush I feel. I was just asking about whether you’d left the States because quite often the right-wing likes to say they see the world correctly whilst everyone else sees it wrong. In one memorable conversation I had I was told I had a warped view of the world because I disagreed with the Iraq conflict. I then asked the person when he’d left the States and accrued his global perspective. He said ‘Why’d I want to travel? I live in the greatest country on Earth’. I’m not saying you can’t get a real perspective on the world if you stay put, but objectivity is a lot easier if you expose yourself to many other viewpoints. That seems to be an oft-lacking factor in American political debate.

22

[quote]rainjack wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Clinton got a blowjob in office.

And he lied about it under oath. He is a dis-barred, impeached liar.

Do you know how shitty of an individual you have to be to be too shitty for the bar association?

What is scary is that idiots like those on the left think he is just fine to lead the most powerful nation on earth, but the bar association won’t trust him enough to get a parking ticket dismissed for someone.

It was all about the blowjob, though[/quote]

Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq and ten thousands have died as a consequence.

But, and this is very important. HE DIDN’T GET A BLOWJOB.

So that make it allright.

23

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq and ten thousands have died as a consequence.

But, and this is very important. HE DIDN’T GET A BLOWJOB.

So that make it allright.
[/quote]

I don’t think Bush lied. There are a bunch of us that don’t think he lied. Just because you think he did doesn’t make it true. Prove it well enough to get Bush impeached - or to even have charges brought up against him, and you have a point. SHort of that - you are just spewing ABB kool-aid.

As for Clinton - he was impeached by the HOR. He was disbarred. I have proof on my side and all you and the rest of the “Bush lied People died” nutjobs have is propaganda.

24

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
ZEB wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
ZEB wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Why is it then when a republican president who agressively pursues terrorism his impeachment is near? Yet a democratic president can sit idley by as we are attacked multiple times in an 8 year period, lie to a federal grand jury and still be considered a great president. In case anyone didn’t read on MSNBC, information collected in Iraq led to the arrests of the NYC subway threat.

MSN There, that’s for all those that think we would be better off if we weren’t fighting in Iraq.

How silly your are!

You forgot rule number one with those guys: “Anything Bush says or does is wrong.” Now how easy is that?

We are called “Cheerleaders” because we back the President. Even though many of us (including me) have disagreed with GW on some major issues. However, I have not yet heard anyone on the left (on this forum) give GW credit for anything. According to them he is a buffoon who is evil and somehow at the same time a genius who is getting rich somehow by the invasion of Iraq.

It’s actually comical if you keep a close watch.

That should explain it for you…

Zeb, do you know why we point out the myriad bad things this presidency has done? Because they far outwiegh any good things! Go look at the national debt levels in your country, look the wealth distribution too, look at New Orleans, look at his failure to stop terrorism, look how many of your compatriates have died in the Middle East. I don’t personally see any of his policies which offset the issues I just outlined. I never called Bush evil, I personally wouldn’t use religously loaded words like that. I don’t know how rich he personally is getting from Iraq but I think the military contracts and civilian contracts are making a lot of his pals rich. Why don’t you scroll thorugh Reuters.com or the BBC.co.uk looking for Haliburton contracts and such and find out, or would that burst your bubble? I know neo-cons are by their very nature blind to reality though, so this will no doubt all fall on deaf ears. Coincidentally have you ever been out of the States Zeb? (just wondering).

Yes, I’m sure England is far better off :slight_smile:

Wait, I thought we were discussing the US president. I’m happy to discuss problems over here but they aren’t really within the remit of a discussion on Bush I feel. I was just asking about whether you’d left the States because quite often the right-wing likes to say they see the world correctly whilst everyone else sees it wrong. In one memorable conversation I had I was told I had a warped view of the world because I disagreed with the Iraq conflict. I then asked the person when he’d left the States and accrued his global perspective. He said ‘Why’d I want to travel? I live in the greatest country on Earth’. I’m not saying you can’t get a real perspective on the world if you stay put, but objectivity is a lot easier if you expose yourself to many other viewpoints. That seems to be an oft-lacking factor in American political debate.[/quote]

Oh I see, and nothing is lacking in “English” debate. :slight_smile:

25

[quote]snipeout wrote:
So what you’re saying slim, is that in the wake of approximately six terrorist attacks against American interests abroad, slick willy didn’t fail to take action as our commander in chief? How about that disgrace in somalia where he cut and run. If anyone remembers, the clinton admin didn’t send Delta and Rangers in until 2 weeks after they brought home roughly 20,000 of our Marines. The fact of the matter is clinton screwed the pooch many more times than GW and still didn’t get fully impeached. Your impeachment cries are comical at best.[/quote]

Where are these facts? The ones of the matter it that is? I’m going to argue semantics here and say Clinton was fully impeached…check your definitions.

While Clinton was the COC(haha) at the time of the Somalia action, his military commanders should have been the ones responsible for running the operation, and any input from Clinton should have come as a direct result of his military advisers…we can speculate after the fact, but we don’t really know what took place or why they came to the decisions they did.

As for the six terrorist actions abroad, how do you know what he did and why? Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date?

26

[quote]rainjack wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Clinton got a blowjob in office.

And he lied about it under oath. He is a dis-barred, impeached liar.

Do you know how shitty of an individual you have to be to be too shitty for the bar association?

What is scary is that idiots like those on the left think he is just fine to lead the most powerful nation on earth, but the bar association won’t trust him enough to get a parking ticket dismissed for someone.

It was all about the blowjob, though[/quote]
No, it is scary that everytime conservatives can see an issue where Bush has done something wrong they throw out the “well he’s better than Clinton cause he’s a man of God, he would never defile the Presidency with his filthy moral conduct…doesn’t matter if his agenda has led to a war without an exit strategy, the price of gas is at an all-time high, our economy is suffering(I know, I know it isn’t his fault,) or that the initial reasons for the invasion have now been proven false, and, even more disturbing, he may have known they were false…it’s all okay, cause he didn’t get any nookie from some White House intern.”

27

John

You didn’t need Bush’s speech to offer your “critique” did you?

It’s the same BS Liberal propoganda you have been spewing since day one. You just wrapped it around GWB speech.

Make sure you and the rest of the anti’s brush yourselves off once you pull your head out of the sand.

28

[quote]slimjim wrote:
it is scary that everytime conservatives can see an issue where Bush has done something wrong they throw out the "well he’s better than Clinton cause he’s a man of God, he would never defile the Presidency with his filthy moral conduct[/quote]

No actually you first mentioned Clinton on this thread. Now you accuse the right of bringing it up first. That’s good stuff! LOL

You began the Clinton banter with this post:

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
John

You didn’t need Bush’s speech to offer your “critique” did you?

It’s the same BS Liberal propoganda you have been spewing since day one. You just wrapped it around GWB speech.

Make sure you and the rest of the anti’s brush yourselves off once you pull your head out of the sand.

[/quote]

Why is anyone criticizing the president an "ABB"er spouting liberal propaganda? Is there anything that could be said against this current administration that WOULDN’T instantly be categorized as such?

Just wondering.

30

[quote]ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
it is scary that everytime conservatives can see an issue where Bush has done something wrong they throw out the "well he’s better than Clinton cause he’s a man of God, he would never defile the Presidency with his filthy moral conduct

No actually you first mentioned Clinton on this thread. Now you accuse the right of bringing it up first. That’s good stuff! LOL

You began the Clinton banter with this post:

Clinton got a blowjob in office.
[/quote]

Believe it or not I realize this, I was merely getting this portion of the debate out of the way early since it is only a matter of time…I guess I could’ve just started another thread to debate this, but it is about as old and tired an argument as GWBAKers have.

31

[quote]slimjim wrote:
snipeout wrote:
So what you’re saying slim, is that in the wake of approximately six terrorist attacks against American interests abroad, slick willy didn’t fail to take action as our commander in chief? How about that disgrace in somalia where he cut and run. If anyone remembers, the clinton admin didn’t send Delta and Rangers in until 2 weeks after they brought home roughly 20,000 of our Marines. The fact of the matter is clinton screwed the pooch many more times than GW and still didn’t get fully impeached. Your impeachment cries are comical at best.

Where are these facts? The ones of the matter it that is? I’m going to argue semantics here and say Clinton was fully impeached…check your definitions.

While Clinton was the COC(haha) at the time of the Somalia action, his military commanders should have been the ones responsible for running the operation, and any input from Clinton should have come as a direct result of his military advisers…we can speculate after the fact, but we don’t really know what took place or why they came to the decisions they did.

As for the six terrorist actions abroad, how do you know what he did and why? Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date? [/quote]

Actually the Military Advised that the operation not be airborne based. They said in the confines of Mogadishu it would be dangerous to isolate a light infantry force. The senior commanders asked for armor. A single armored platoon of M-1 tanks would have intimidated any opposition and would be undefeatable by the weapons the opposition carried. The Rangers could have been pinned the enemy and used the armor to defend and hold ground. Basic stuff for any commander to plan.

Clinton, specifically, denied the army Armor protection in Somalia. Clinton, over ruled the commanders on the ground. This directly led to the death of the soldiers on the ground. He thought US tanks would send the wrong message and to this day stands by his decision. The Ranger force was actually rescued by a Pakastani Armored platoon, along with US infantry reinforcements. Again I will reiterate, any combat commander saw the dangers and would have planned accordingly. They were over ruled by the POTUS.

Clinton failed to recognize the terrorist actions abroad as military attacks and his response was to treat them as police investigations. This display of weakness emboldened the terrorists to escalate their level of attacks, culminating in 9/11. If Clinton had acted decisevely after the original attacks it is likely that 9/11 would not occur. From a strategic standpoint 9/11 was a mistake for Al-Queda. They lost all of their secure bases, a majority of it’s trained operators and the support of like minded murderer’s around the world. They are now a pariah and are hunted worldwide. They could have been given this message after any one of the earlier attacks had Clinton been a strong leader and choose to deal with it as a military action instead of a police investigation.

32

[quote]harris447 wrote:
hedo wrote:
John

You didn’t need Bush’s speech to offer your “critique” did you?

It’s the same BS Liberal propoganda you have been spewing since day one. You just wrapped it around GWB speech.

Make sure you and the rest of the anti’s brush yourselves off once you pull your head out of the sand.

Why is anyone criticizing the president an "ABB"er spouting liberal propaganda? Is there anything that could be said against this current administration that WOULDN’T instantly be categorized as such?

Just wondering.[/quote]

I think the critique was more hate mongering then critique. Read it in context. He editorialized his position much more then refuted specific points. In fact it was a rehash of his positions since he bagan posting here.

Sure lots of things could be said as a critique. Many conservatives have criticized GWB on his fiscal policies, immigration etc. The differnece is the desire for improvement vs. mere whining based hatred and idealogy.

33

[quote]hedo wrote:
slimjim wrote:
snipeout wrote:
So what you’re saying slim, is that in the wake of approximately six terrorist attacks against American interests abroad, slick willy didn’t fail to take action as our commander in chief? How about that disgrace in somalia where he cut and run. If anyone remembers, the clinton admin didn’t send Delta and Rangers in until 2 weeks after they brought home roughly 20,000 of our Marines. The fact of the matter is clinton screwed the pooch many more times than GW and still didn’t get fully impeached. Your impeachment cries are comical at best.

Where are these facts? The ones of the matter it that is? I’m going to argue semantics here and say Clinton was fully impeached…check your definitions.

While Clinton was the COC(haha) at the time of the Somalia action, his military commanders should have been the ones responsible for running the operation, and any input from Clinton should have come as a direct result of his military advisers…we can speculate after the fact, but we don’t really know what took place or why they came to the decisions they did.

As for the six terrorist actions abroad, how do you know what he did and why? Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date?

Actually the Military Advised that the opeation not be airborne based. They said in the confines of Mogadishu it would be dangerous to isolate a light infantry force. The senior commanders asked for armor. A single armored platoon of M-1 tanks would have intimidated any opposition and would be undefeatable by the weapons the opposition carried. The Rangers could have been pinned the enemy and used the armor to defend and hold ground. Basic stuff for any commander to plan.

Clinton, specifically, denied the army Armor portection is Somalia. Clinton, over ruled the commanders on the ground. This directly led to the death of the soldiers on the ground. He thought US tanks would send the wrong message and to this day stands by his decision. The Ranger force was actually rescued by a Pakastani Armored platoon, along with US infantry reinforcements. Again I will reiterate, any combat commander saw the dangers and would have planned accordingly. They were over ruled by the POTUS.

Clinton failed to recognize the terrorist actions abroad as military attacks and his response was to treat them as police investigations. This display of weakness emboldened the terrorists to escalate their level of attacks, culminating in 9/11. If Clinton had acted decisevely after the original attacks it is likely that 9/11 would not occur. From a strategic standpoint 9/11 was a mistake for Al-Queda. They lost all of their secure bases, a majority of it’s trained operators and the support of like minded murderer’s around the world. They are now a pariah and are hunted worldwide. They could have been given this message after any one of the earlier attacks had Clinton been a strong leader and choose to deal with it as a military action instead of a police investigation.

Thank god…it was all Clinton’s fault again. I was worried for a second that Bush might have been briefed that “Al Queda was determined to attack inside the United States” on August 6th and did fuck-all about it.

But it was Clinton’s fault. When do things STOP being Clinton’s fault? 2010? 2025?

Or, more obviously, the day the next Democrati president gets inaugerated.

[/quote]

34

[quote]hedo wrote:
harris447 wrote:
hedo wrote:
John

You didn’t need Bush’s speech to offer your “critique” did you?

It’s the same BS Liberal propoganda you have been spewing since day one. You just wrapped it around GWB speech.

Make sure you and the rest of the anti’s brush yourselves off once you pull your head out of the sand.

Why is anyone criticizing the president an "ABB"er spouting liberal propaganda? Is there anything that could be said against this current administration that WOULDN’T instantly be categorized as such?

Just wondering.

I think the critique was more hate mongering then critique. Read it in context. He editorialized his position much more then refuted specific points. In fact it was a rehash of his positions since he bagan posting here.

Sure lots of things could be said as a critique. Many conservatives have criticized GWB on his fiscal policies, immigration etc. The differnece is the desire for improvement vs. mere whining based hatred and idealogy.

[/quote]

That’s amazing that someone’s whose previous post contained the phrases “liberal propaganda” and “Anti’s” would get upset at someone else’s so-called ideology.

35

[quote]harris447 wrote:
hedo wrote:
harris447 wrote:
hedo wrote:
John

You didn’t need Bush’s speech to offer your “critique” did you?

It’s the same BS Liberal propoganda you have been spewing since day one. You just wrapped it around GWB speech.

Make sure you and the rest of the anti’s brush yourselves off once you pull your head out of the sand.

Why is anyone criticizing the president an "ABB"er spouting liberal propaganda? Is there anything that could be said against this current administration that WOULDN’T instantly be categorized as such?

Just wondering.

I think the critique was more hate mongering then critique. Read it in context. He editorialized his position much more then refuted specific points. In fact it was a rehash of his positions since he bagan posting here.

Sure lots of things could be said as a critique. Many conservatives have criticized GWB on his fiscal policies, immigration etc. The differnece is the desire for improvement vs. mere whining based hatred and idealogy.

That’s amazing that someone’s whose previous post contained the phrases “liberal propaganda” and “Anti’s” would get upset at someone else’s so-called ideology.
[/quote]

Really gee whiz on a politcal debate forum who would have thought people would draw differences…oh my.

Why do you think I am upset? Thanks for caring though.

36

Thanks for the back up there HEDO!!

37

[quote]slimjim wrote:
ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
it is scary that everytime conservatives can see an issue where Bush has done something wrong they throw out the "well he’s better than Clinton cause he’s a man of God, he would never defile the Presidency with his filthy moral conduct

No actually you first mentioned Clinton on this thread. Now you accuse the right of bringing it up first. That’s good stuff! LOL

You began the Clinton banter with this post:

Clinton got a blowjob in office.

Believe it or not I realize this, I was merely getting this portion of the debate out of the way early since it is only a matter of time…I guess I could’ve just started another thread to debate this, but it is about as old and tired an argument as GWBAKers have.[/quote]

Then stop bringing it up!

38

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Why is it then when a republican president who agressively pursues terrorism his impeachment is near? Yet a democratic president can sit idley by as we are attacked multiple times in an 8 year period, lie to a federal grand jury and still be considered a great president. In case anyone didn’t read on MSNBC, information collected in Iraq led to the arrests of the NYC subway threat.

MSN There, that’s for all those that think we would be better off if we weren’t fighting in Iraq. [/quote]

I had actually forgotten why I had posted the BJ thing in the first place til I reread this.

I know, I know, here I go flip-flopping in true liberal fashion.

39

[quote]ZEB wrote:
According to them he is a buffoon who is evil and somehow at the same time a genius who is getting rich somehow by the invasion of Iraq.

It’s actually comical if you keep a close watch.

That should explain it for you…[/quote]

It is getting harder and harder to take the left seriously.

The more they talk, the more ridiculous they sound.

40

[quote]It is getting harder and harder to take the left seriously.

The more they talk, the more ridiculous they sound.[/quote]

Yeah, pretty soon they will sound almost as dumb as the Bush cheerleading brigade…