Farenheit 911

[EnderAndrew]

Except I've never expressed an extremist opinion. You however had claimed that the United States is creating puppet governments around the world, started more wars in the 20th century that anyone else (which is false), and is guilty of countless acts of human rights violations. Those are some pretty extreme accusations.

 

Your "proof" is a list of dates where the United States took over countries, that we don't control, and an extreme liberal stomping grounds. I use objective sites like CNN for proof.

[taks]

You seriously need to stop watching the Fox News.. You know, the same channel that broadcasted pictures of cheering Iraqis just after 9/11..? Those pictures were later discovered as taken years before, related to something entirely different.

funny, i've never heard that... got proof?

taks

[Ivan the Terrible]

Kerry completely contradicts everything he said two years ago, let alone three months ago.

[taks]

funny how you managed to rip those quotes off of liberal websites and use them as "proof."

 

a quick search on some of the "quotes" turns up ONLY postings on liberal blogs, actually, it looks as if you just cut and pasted that information from whyimnotright or somewhere similar. don't you think you should credit the website you cut them from rather than pretending this rhetoric is your original material? for shame...

 

oddly, i search the post for some of those quotes and they don't turn up... now why would that be?

 

taks

[mkreku]

Ok, just to shut you up, taks, the source of those quotes are from here:

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=42263

 

If you read that article, you'll notice that EVERY quote from Bush (or anyone else used) does have a source.

 

But you're so stuck on your view you're going to call CNN, Washington Post, www.whitehouse.gov and the rest of the sources "liberal websites" and still not accept it as proof.

[Ivan the Terrible]

funny how you managed to rip those quotes off of liberal websites and use them as "proof."

 

a quick search on some of the "quotes" turns up ONLY postings on liberal blogs, actually, it looks as if you just cut and pasted that information from whyimnotright or somewhere similar. don't you think you should credit the website you cut them from rather than pretending this rhetoric is your original material? for shame...

 

oddly, i search the post for some of those quotes and they don't turn up... now why would that be?

 

taks

A similiarly brief search on Google shows you're full of it.

 

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...bush091701.html

 

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important."

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html

[taks]

woohoo!!! the liberal does some research... well, if you read his list, it was actually directly lifted (in the same order) from a list on whyimnotright (or similar). not from the americanprogress site... NONE of his quotes above contained links that are on the latter...

 

and, coincidentally, here's some reasonable anaylsis on all of the "flip-flops."

 

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/003257.html

 

my favorite is the chalbi incident... it turns out he may be a spy and bush is flip-flopping on him? uh, can anyone say "new evidence to support a revised opinion."? sheesh... let's see, same goes on the "nation building" quote difference from 2000 to 2003... uh, 9/11 anyone?

 

i'm stuck on my view that searching for TWO (i said 'some') of the washington post "quotes" turned up nothing (do a search on mccain-feingold or any piece of that quote and see what comes up...)

 

taks

[Vault-Tech]

i know i said i got my point across but what about the saudia arabian ambasy in the u.s. i heard they had 820 billion 7% of the u.s. cuz of bushes dad he had alot of bussiness with them and gave them guns and all to fight in that war they were having.

[mkreku]

i'm stuck on my view that searching for TWO (i said 'some') of the washington post "quotes" turned up nothing (do a search on mccain-feingold or any piece of that quote and see what comes up...)

 

taks

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law."

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...3/20020327.html

 

 

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression."

 

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2000/march/032900n9.htm

 

There are the sources. So which direction are you going to slither in now?

[Ivan the Terrible]

i'm stuck on my view that searching for TWO (i said 'some') of the washington post "quotes" turned up nothing (do a search on mccain-feingold or any piece of that quote and see what comes up...)

Meanwhile, for those of us who didn't just search to find what we wanted and then come back with a not-so-smoking gun, a search for 'feingold' brings up....

 

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost...ex=740&PQACnt=1

 

A Washington Post article, dated 3/28/2000 (check the date of the source cited above), as well as nearly 70 or 80 other pages on the discussion of campaign finance reform.

 

I would recommend walking away now with at least some of your dignity intact.

[mkreku]

I thought this one was kind of funny..

[Volourn]

Wrong. The 9/11 Commission said there were no links between them when it involves 9/11. Afterall, that is what the commission is investigating. There was/is a link between iraq, and AQ. The question is exactly what does that link involve. Of course, let's not forget what Mr. Russsia had to say about Hussein's plans for the US. Iraq 99.9% chance had nothing to do with 9/11; but to sit there with a striaght face and proclaim they didn't want to do harm to the US in some way is ludicrous.

[oherror]

I wouldn't watch Fox News if I was paid to. I've seen countless sources everyday of Iraqis glad the Americans are there on MSNBC, BBC and CNN.

hell i can tell you first hand the people of iraq were and are glad we took down saddam. When my convoy rolled into baghdad and saw the people come out to greet us, it was amazing.

 

Also the suicide bombers that are always on the news a HUGE portion of them are not iraqies, but in fact from iran and a few other surrounding countries. hell my squad caught one before he blew him self up last week and he was from sudan. Don't always believe what the news say on the war, they too have there own agenda.

[triCritical]

I don't believe Bush lied.\

Well then his lies are just extreme uses of spin.

 

They attacked us because they don't like free societies...

freedom = democracy.

saying troop morale was high based off a soldier he just put a puple heart on, when a gallop poll just stated the opposite.

 

If you are going to call Michael Moore a liar then you have to call the administration liars based on the same token.

[triCritical]

hell i can tell you first hand the people of iraq were and are glad we took down saddam. When my convoy rolled into baghdad and saw the people come out to greet us, it was amazing.

How much are Iraqi's paying for gas?

and driving from Baghdad to Karbala, how many independent militias do you think you would run into?

[anari_quun]

Despite the infinite complexity of the situation, it's all very simple:

 

Bush used the fear and vengance created by 9/11 to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Of course there is some connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, just like there was a connection between the U.S. government and contras. "Links" can be drawn between exceedingly disparate elements; the idea that there was a causal link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is extremely unlikely. Not to say Saddam wouldn't have condoned it, but why would Saddam need to be involved?

 

Ender, I do appreciate the reason you bring to the forum; please do not use the phrase "anti-American" when referring to people who are anti-Bush, or people who, anti-Bush or not, have criticisms of current policy. Clearly the existing policy is not making the world better for Americans, let alone anyone in any other country.

 

There are many countries with anti-American aspects of their policy; for what other reason would we go after Iraq and not North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Cuba, Lybia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., than the fact that:

 

1) Iraq is a Muslim country, which to most uneductated Americans amounts to "fanatical extremist Muslim terrorist"; the 9/11 attackers were Muslims, so the Iraqis must be behind them, right?

2) We had previously engaged Saddam/Iraq in a war; they are already established in the American consciousness as the enemy; it would be an easy sell to make them the enemy again.

3) Iraq is a sovereign nation the U.S. can formally address on the world stage. It's not a far stretch to think that the Bush admin. thought a war here would actually placate U.S. thoughts of retaliation, yet:

4) Iraq has/had practically no military to oppose the U.S.

5) Iraq just so happens to be sitting on one of the world's biggest oil reserves.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the government's interests are!

 

It's actually interesting: Bush really didn't totally sell the whole Iraq WMD thing to the public; the administration went ahead with it anyway despite mass worldwide protest.

 

Looks like it's not a democracy after all...

[Raven]

now that america is going to turn saddam over to iraq this wednesday, might as well throw freedom and democracy out the window. hes going to take over iraq again, just watch

[LostStraw]

Looks like it's not a democracy after all...

 

America is not a true democracy. I'm inclined to think America would be worse off if it was.

[anari_quun]

Though it is doubtful that Saddam would rise to power again, any government implanted by the U.S. will fall to the extremist groups who will never accept a Western influenced government. Read: Iran.

[Meshugger]

I simply dislike Bush for the following reasons:

 

- Questionable rhetorics.

- Diplomacy with isolationistic tendencies.

- His affiliations with Enron.

- His and Cheney's affiliations with Halliburton.

- Pushing his own religious beliefs in a country's constitution that's based on freedom of religion.

[anari_quun]

Looks like it's not a democracy after all...

 

America is not a true democracy. I'm inclined to think America would be worse off if it was.

True, complete democracy was not the plan. But usually the country has to be attacked before going to war.

[EnderAndrew]

First off, I don't even know if these quotes are legit since other people can't find them. Let's pretend they are legit.

The difference is that Kerry's wishy-washyness hasn't gotten anyone killed.

Let's address this first. We have no clue what Kerry's platforms are, because he hasn't presented them. Any assumptions about Kerry are ill-founded. Every politician in every election promises change. How many bring it? And what kind of change? Let's try to apply common sense here.

 

I've heard the argument that Republicans are pro-war, and Democrats don't kill anyone. Clinton's bombs sure killed people. And we he refused to take Osama Bin Laden into custody, he may have failed to prevent 9/11. There's a few thousand deaths right there. Should be blame someone for the 405,399 American casualties in WWII? The President is sure responsible for killing people there. Maybe the United States had a moral obligation to do something about what was happening. The tenets of freedom and peace are often paid for with blood, and that's a sad reality. Putin says Iraq had the means to, and plans to attack the US. Once could easily argue that the war in Iraq saved American lives, but that's purely conjecture. One could also argue that we're saving Iraqi lives.

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY...

Hrm. One quote here is by Bush, and the other isn't. And if you followed the situation, Bush did do a small reversal here, after the original proposed bill for Homeland security had a major rewrite. He said the changes in the bill were enough to reconsider the plan.

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction

One quote says we found biological weapons. The next addresses the concern that everyone wants to see a large stockpile, which we haven't found. There is no contradiction here.

3. Free Trade

In one instance, Bush is supporting trade with Peru. In another, he is protecting American interests. China is doing the same thing right now, placing even more restrictions on incoming American products. And quite frankly, most any government will tell you that they have to protect their interests first. I'd expect Democrats to do the same. Depending on market situations, you make adjustments. That's just good business.

4. Osama Bin Laden

I find it rather hard to believe Bush said in a press conference he didn't care about Bin Laden, and if the quote is true, I'd like to see the context it was expressed in. I disagree with some of Bush's policies and morals, but Bush says what he means. He's a pretty straight-shooter, and he has a classic Texan mentality. He's proud and patriotic.

5. The Environment

This sounds more like a compromise. Bush wanted to increase federal standards and restrictions, and he compromised on the carbon dioxide levels. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Lest we forget, Clinton promised to pass the same restrictions for 8 years, and never did. And Clinton promised for 8 years to increase water standards, and never did. Bush pushed both acts through, despite the media calling him anti-environment simply because he's Republican. He's passed more environmental legislation in 4 years than Clinton came close to touching in 8.

6. WMD Commission

This is beautiful. Yes, he made a 180. He originally didn't feel it was worth billions of taxpayer dollars to investigate the WMD search, because it is partisan BS in an election year. However, the public suspected conspiracy, and he caved in. He said, go ahead and investigate me. You'll find nothing. And Democrats screamed there were secrets because Rice hadn't testified on public television. She testified to the commission in a private session for 4 hours, but that wasn't good enough. Bush cited national security, but people kept screaming conspiracy, so he everntually allowed her to testify publicly, and allow that testimony to be shown on television. The man was expressed concerns for budget and national security. The Democrats are wasting yax dollars are election hooplah and partisan politics. Bush has merely demonstated he doesn't have anything to hide. Please, keep bringing points like this up. You're making a great case for yourself. Next.

7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

Same thing. Moving on.

8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

Once again, budget concerns, but Democrats don't care. I watched part of the proceedings, and have been following the Comission via CNN. I loved how Clarke suggested the Bush caused 9/11 by not ordering an assassination on Osama Bin Laden, despite CIA intel showing that taking out Bin Laden wouldn't have helped, and further more, the US doesn't support assassinations anymore. That ended in the late 80's. That was all under Reagan, whom everyone is now singing praises of because he died.

9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

This like many of the "contradictions" listed, are two different sources, neither of which are directly accredited quotes. Recently, a friend of mine who is extremely liberal blasted Bush with some supposed statements he made. He uses Reuters and Public Radio for news. NPR said Bush said one thing. Reuters said Bush said something completely different. So we did some searching, and we found that the first Bush statement wasn't made by Bush at all. It was made by Tony Blair, and NPR accreddited it to Bush. The second statement was partially true, but misquoted from the original transcripts I found. If you want to talk about quotes, it's best to use direct accredited quotes from a reputable news agency.

 

And it's standard procedures for the President to schedule exactly how much time he gives in private interviews. Clinton did the same with the Federal Grand Jury. The fact that Bush later agreed (if he did) to give more time to the interview that serves as a personal witch hunt against him merely shows his willingness to cooperate. You are making Bush look like a saint, you do realize this.

10. Gay Marriage

I'll give you this one. Frankly, I think he's wrong on all counts. The 14th Ammendment of the Constitution would suggest the government shouldn't pass any legislation on the issue. So far you're batting 1 for 10. That's pretty good.

11. Nation Building

First off, I can't find either of these two quotes. But, let's keep operating on the assumption they are real. He says in principle he doesn't support nation building. That's good. Why would anyone have a problem with this? He several years later cites a specific instance where he feels a regime change is necessary. Now if said that he would never touch Iraq, and then turned around and went back on that statement, we'd have an outright lie. What you have here is someone explaining a principle, and an exception to that principle. People do it all the time. In principle, I hate pop music. However, I own a few pop albums like Sarah Mclachlan. That doesn't mean I will turn into a Brittany Spears fan tomorrow. I make exceptions to principles.

12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

Read these quotes closely. Al Qaeda and Saddam are both enemies in the war on terror. Saddam didn't have a hand directly in 9/11. Are these two statements exclusive? No. Saddam does give financial support to Al Quaeda, and provides save haven for terrorists. He gives money to the families of suicide bombers. He was also developing WMD with Al Quaeda in Sudan. That doesn't mean he planned 9/11. Al Quaeda is responsible for many attacks on the US, and will carry out many more if allowed to do as such. Perhaps you don't care about that, and feel that it would save lives if we ignored terrorists. Historically that has done rather well, hasn't it? You claim Bush kills people, and that Kerry won't. If Kerry were President when this country was attacked, you better believe he would have gone into Afghanistan, and he would have at least considered going into Iraq. The CIA had intel Iraq was planning an attack. Other nations came forward with intel Iraq was planning an attack. And Iraq failed to comply with UN regulations for 12 years. It was on the table during Clinton's administration, and Kerry would have had to make the call. Maybe he wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but there is a possibility he would have. However, since Kerry wasn't in office at the time, he can criticize the decisions made by Bush.

13. U.N. Resolution

Bush said he wanted everyone to stand up and say where they stood. People did, and the vote wasn't necessary anymore. A coalition of 30 countries took part in the liberation of Iraq. The media wasn't talking about how Canada, or Australia was behind the war effort. The media said it was just England, Spain and the US. That's simply not true. And the media made sure everyone heard about how France would veto any resolution, no matter what. And so would Russia.

 

Where do they get their oil? Iraq. And who do they have strong ties to? Saddam. And they accused us of only worrying about oil prices. Pot. Kettle. Black.

14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict[/b]

I love the headlines you put above these quotes. Are you familiar with the term editorializing? You are putting words in Bush's mouth. Did he say he opposed summits? No. He said in the past they didn't work out. And he said if meetings help, great. You say he opposed the summits, and then supported them. You're creating a lie that wasn't there.

15. Campaign Finance

Do you know how often bills get radically changed in a matter of two years? Standing behind a bill today, and standing behind a bill of the same name two years later is completely different. If he said he supported cutting income tax, and then suddenly raised it, we'd have a serious discussion on the issue. However, here you have him expressing concerns about a bill, and singing a bill of the same name two years later. That doesn't say anything.

 

In the end, you batted 1-15. Care to try again?

[EnderAndrew]

I simply dislike Bush for the following reasons:

 

- Questionable rhetorics.

- Diplomacy with isolationistic tendencies.

- His affiliations with Enron.

- His and Cheney's affiliations with Halliburton.

- Pushing his own religious beliefs in a country's constitution that's based on freedom of religion.

Kudos to you.

 

Seriously, I'm not a Bush lackey. I just hate the propogation of lies.

 

And in response to Mkreku's political cartoon, the 9/11 comission didn't say there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. The 9/11 comission said the Saddam didn't have a direct hand in 9/11 itself. And that's standard for Al Quaeda, where few people know anything that's going on. Saddam did however cooperate on weapons programs with Al Quaeda, and help fund in them in past endeavors.

 

So, if you're going to claim they weren't inked at all, I'd take that is either your uninformed, you refuse to accept facts in front of you, or you're lying.

[triCritical]

Looks like it's not a democracy after all...

 

America is not a true democracy. I'm inclined to think America would be worse off if it was.

Just look at California to see how democracies can ruin stuff.

[triCritical]

Saddam did however cooperate on weapons programs with Al Quaeda, and help fund in them in past endeavors.

This is a bunch of a bull. Saddam's regime had soviet planes and Al Quada used Boeing planes. The anthrax, well that could have come from anywhere. And I don't think Saddam's regime was into reusing old shells as bombs.

 

As far as the taliban crap, that is probably an accumulation of internet, Iran and Pakistan more then Saddam. I have yet to see any hard proof of this besides the words of a corrupt Russian president and the National Review.